THE ATHENIAN

AGORA
RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS
CONDUCTED BY
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

VOLUME I

PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

BY

EVELYN B. HARRISON

A0P
~sa~
FJ":~~A

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
I953
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PRINTED IN GERMANY at J.J.AUGUSTIN GLTCKSTADT

 PREFACE
he object of the present volume is to publish all the portrait sculpture that has been found
T by the AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudiesat Athensin the excavation in the AthenianAgora
since the beginning of that excavation in 1931. The most recently discovered of the pieces
discussed came to light during the season of 1952. The term "portrait sculpture"is not capable
of absolute definition, and I have had to make some arbitrary decisions as to what it shall
embrace. Thus several headless torsos which were certainly those of portrait statues have been
included at the end of the catalogue in order to give examples of the kinds of statues to which
the surviving heads belonged, but draped female statues of the pre-Roman period have been
omitted. Statues of women cannot be distinguishedfrom those of goddesses so long as the heads
are missing, and it is easier to study all drapedfemale statues together. Heads from grave reliefs
of the Roman period which seemed to show portrait characteristicshave been included, but no
attempt has been made to include headless fragments from gravestones of any period.
The main body of the text takes the form of a catalogue. For the benefit of the non-specialist
reader who desires information on a single object, I have tried, at the risk of a certain amount
of repetition, to make the catalogue discussion of each piece intelligible by itself. For the still
more casual consultant who has not the time to read a few pages of text I have attempted to
include some kind of date in the heading of each item. It is hoped that all readers will realize
with what caution these are to be used. In every case such labels should be taken as indicating
only the typologicaldateof the work in question, not the absolute limits for the time of its actual
creation. Thus a portrait which shows the same style as portraits of MaximinusThrax might be
labelled "period of MaximinusThrax," but this would not mean that, since Maximinusreigned
for only three years, there are only three years duringwhich the portrait in question could have
been carved. Allowances must always be made for the differences between conservative and
progressiveartists in any one period, and the range for the possible actual date of execution of
a given piece will always be somewhat wider than that given for the typological date.
The sequence of heads in the catalogue is roughly chronological.Pieces which I was unable to
date closely generally follow those which could be more accurately placed, e.g. a head dated
"second half of the third century" comes after those dated "period of Gallienus" even though
it may, for all we know, be earlierthan they.
I have added to the catalogue a general introduction explaining the original uses of the por-
traits and the contexts in which they were found, and a concluding section containing certain
general observations on the style and chronology of Roman portraits made in Athens that have
been suggested to me by the study of the Agora portraits.
A number of the portraits published here have already appeared in campaign reports in
Hesperia. In the case of those published before 1940 the number and size of the views shown in
Hesperia and the quality of their reproductionare sometimes superiorto what has been possible
in the present volume. Readers are therefore urged to refer to these earlierpublications as well
as to the illustrations given here.
vi THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
For advice and criticism which has been extremely helpful in the preparation of this manu-
script I owe especial thanks to Homer A. Thompson, Field Director of the Excavations in the
Athenian Agora, as well as to Margarete Bieber, Rhys Carpenter and William B. Dinsmoor.
Lucy Talcott, in charge of the records of the excavations, has rendered invaluable assistance
with innumerable details. All the photographs of Agora portraits discovered since 1940 and
many new photographs of pieces found earlier are the work of Alison Frantz. The others are by
Hermann Wagner. I have included in the text a list of the photographsof portraits from outside
the Agora which I have used for comparative purposes.I wish to thank especially Emil Kunze,
Director of the GermanArchaeologicalInstitute in Athens, and his assistants, Franz Willemsen
and Ulrich Hausmann, for making negatives available for use at this time. For information on
various special problems connected with the portraitsI am indebted to Harald Ingholt, Christos
Karouzos, James H. Oliver,Henry S. Robinson, GeorgeStamires,MeriwetherStuart and Eugene
Vanderpool.
My initial work on the portraits in Athens was done during my tenure of a Fulbright Scholar-
ship in Greece in the year 1949-50. The manuscript, in substantially its present form, was sub-
mitted as a dissertation to the Faculty of Philosophy of ColumbiaUniversity in May, 1952 and
has been microfilmed.

UNIVERSITY OFCINCINNATI EVELYNB. HARRISON

DECEMBER, 1952.
 CONTENTS
PREFACE . . . . . . . . ...... . . . .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
..

LIST OF PLATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iX

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................. Xi

INTRODUCTION.......... 1
.............................

..........
CATALOGUE ........ . . ............ . . .... . . .. . 9

OBSERVATIONS ON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD . . . . . . .......... ..82

I THE ROMANIZATION OF GREEK PORTRAITS .................... .. . 82

THE LATE REPUBLICAN PERIOD
......................... 84
THE AUGUSTAN PERIOD ........................... 86

II ATHENIAN PORTRAITS IN THE STYLE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

III ATHENIAN PORTRAITS OF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER ............... 90
THE ARCHAEOLOGICALEVIDENCE ....................... . 90
THE EARLY THIRD CENTURY (A.D. 200-235) .................. 93
REALISM(A.D. 235-253) ........................... 95
THE THIRD QUARTER OF THE THIRD CENTURY . ................. 97
THE KOSMETAI AND RELATED PORTRAITS . . . . . . . .......... 98
THE "PHILOSOPHERS". .......................... 100
THE LAST QUARTER OF THE THIRD CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
THE FOURTH CENTURY .................... 105
........
THE FIFTH CENTURY ............................ 106

CONCORDANCE OF INVENTORY AND CATALOGUE NUMBERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..107

.

INDEX OF MUSEUMS . ............................... .. ... 108

GENERAL INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

 LIST OF PLATES
Plate Cat. No. Plate
1 1 43 a. Herodotosin New York (Courtesyof MetropolitanMuseumof Art)
2 2, 5 b. Head in Athens, NationalMuseum,No. 821 (GermanInst. Phot. N. M.
3 3 147a)
4 4, 6 c. Head in Corinth,Inv. No. 1445 a
5 7
6 7 d. Augustus(?) fromNolain NewYork (Courtesyof MetropolitanMuseum
7 8, 9 of Art)
8 10, 12 e. Augustusfrom Prima Porta (Hekler,Bildniskunst,pl. 171)
9 11 f. Augustusin Corinth,Inv. No. 1116
10 11, 13 g. Augustusin Samos (GermanInst. Phot. Samos908)
11 14, 15, 16
12 17, 23 44 a. Antonia (2) in Berlin (Bliimel, R5mischeBildnisse, R 23, pl. 16)
13 18 b. Faustinathe Youngerin Olympia(GermanInst. Phot., negativelost)
14 19 c. Polydeukion(2) in Berlin (Bliimel,RamischeBildnisse,R 72, pl. 44)
15 20
16 21, 22, 24 45 Hadrian from the Olympieion,in Athens, National Museum,No. 249
17 25 (Photographby Alison Frantz)
18 26, 27, 29
19 28 46 a. Ephebe in Athens, National Museum, No. 399 (GermanInst. Phot.
20 80, 31, 32 N. M. 87 a and b)
21 33, 34 b. Ephebe in Athens, National Museum, No. 391 (GermanInst. Phot.
22 35 N.M. 79 b)
23 36 c. TrebonianusGallusin New York (Courtesyof MetropolitanMuseum
24 37 of Art)
25 38 d. Priest in Athens, NationalMuseum,No. 432 (GermanInst. Phot. N.M.
26 39
27 40, 42 548 b)
28 41, 47 e. Priest in Eleusis (GermanInst. Phot. EL 381)
29 45, 46 47 a. Head in Athens, National Museum,No. 580 (GermanInst. Phot. N.M.
30 44
48, 1583)
31 48, 49 b. Head in Corinth,Inv. No. 2415
32 50,
38 51 5,8 c. Head from Epidauros,in Athens, National Museum,No. 582 (German
34 52 Inst. Phot. N.M. 1587)
35 54, 55 d. Head-vasein AthenianAgora,Inv. No. P 10004
36 56 e. Headin Athens,NationalMuseum,No. 573 (L'Orange,Studien,fig. 103)
37 56
38 57, 58, 60 48 a. Flaccilla(?) in New York (Courtesyof the MetropolitanMuseumof Art)
39 57, 58, 60 b. Regilla in Olympia (German Inst. Phot. OL 2138)
40 59, 61, 62, 63 c. Diptych of Boethius (L'Orange, Studien, fig. 234)
41 64
42 64 49 Actual State, Plan of the Athenian Agora.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY*
A.B. = Griechischeund ramischePortrdts,herausgegebenvon Paul Arndt, fortgefiihrtvon GeorgLippold.
Munich,F. Bruckmann,from1891
A.J.A = AmericanJournalof Archaeology
Alf61ldi,25 Jahre riimisch-germanischeKommission= AndrasAlfj61di,"Die Vorherrschaftder Pannonierim
R6merreicheund die Reaction des Hellenentumsunter Gallienus",pp. 11-51
AllardPiersonStichting,Bijdragen= AllardPiersonStichting,Universiteitvan Amsterdam.Archaeologisch-
HistorischeBijdragen.Amsterdam,from 1932
Altertilmervon Pergamon= Altertilmervon Pergamon,herausgegebenim Auftragedes ko-niglichpreuBischen
Ministersdergeistlichen,Unterrichts-und Medizinalangelegenheiten. KaniglicheMuseenzuBerlin,Berlin,
1885-1937
Annuario = Annuariodella[r.] scuolaarchaeologica di Atenee dellemissioniitalianein oriente
Die Antike = Die Antike,Zeitschrift
fitr Kunst und Kultur des klassischenAltertums
Arch.Anz. = Archdiologischer Anzeiger
ArchaeologiaiErtesitk,Magyar TudomdnyosAkade'mia.Budapest
Ath. Mitt. = Mitteilungendes deutschenarchdologischen Instituts,AthenischeAbteilung
B.C.H. = Bulletinde correspondance helle'nique
B.M.C., Empire = Coinsof the RomanEmpirein the British Museum.London,from 1923
B.M.M.A. = Bulletinof the MetropolitanMuseumof Art. New York
Bernoulli,G. 1. = Johann J. Bernoulli,Griechische Ikonographie.Munich,1901
R.
Bernoulli, I.-- Johann J. Bernoulli,Rimische Ikonographie.Stuttgart, 1882-94
Billedtavler= Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. til
Billedtavler KatalogetoverantikerKunstvaerker. Copenhagen,1907
Bliimel, ReimischeBildnisse = CarlBliimel,StaatlicheMuseenzu Berlin.KatalogderSammlungantikerSkulp-
turen,V, RimischeBildnisse.Berlin, 1933
Bovini,Mon.Ant., XXXIX, 1943 = GiuseppeBovini, "Osservazionisullaritrattristicaromanada Treboniano
Galloa Probo",pp. 180-369
Brendel, Otto, Ikonographiedes KaisersAugustus.Diss. Niirnberg,1931
Broneer,Oscar,Corinth,X, TheOdeum.Cambridge,Mass., 1932
Buschor,Ernst, Das hellenistischeBildnis. Munich,1949
C.A.H., XII = The Cambridge AncientHistory,XII, edited by S. A. Cook,F. E. Adcock,M. P. Charlesworth
and N. H. Baynes. Cambridge,1939
C.A.H., Plates, V = The CambridgeAncient History, Volume of Plates, V, preparedby C. T. Seltman.
Cambridge,1939
Clara Rhodos= Clara Rhodos,Studi e materialipubblicatia cura dell'istitutostorico-archeologico di Rodi.
Rhodes, 1928-1941
Conze= AlexanderConze,Die attischenGrabreliefs, 4 v. Berlin, 1893-1922
Corinth= Corinth,Resultsof theExcavationsconductedby the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat Athens.
Cambridge,Mass.and Princeton,1929-
Crome,Das Bildnis Vergils= Johann FriedrichCrome,Das Bildnis Vergils,Reale accademiavirgilianadi
Mantova,Atti e memorie,Nuova serie, XXIV, pp. 1-73. Mantua,1935
Curtius,Rim. Mitt. and Mitt. d. Inst. = LudwigCurtius,"IkonographischeBeitrige szumPortriitder rAmi-
schen Republik und der julisch-claudischen Familie", I-III, R6m. Mitt., XLVII, 1932, pp. 202-268;
IV-V, Rom. Mitt., XLVIII, 1933, pp. 182-243; VI, Rom. Mitt., XLIX, 1934, pp. 119-156; VII-VIII,
Rom. Mitt., L, 1935, pp. 260-320; IX-XI, Ram. Mitt., LIV, 1939, pp. 112-144; XII, Rom. Mitt., LV,
1940, pp. 36-64; XIII-XIV, Mitt. d. Inst., I, 1948, pp. 53-94
Day, Economic History = John Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination. New York,
1942
* This list is meant to serve both as a list of abbreviations and as a selected bibliography. All abbreviated items are
included, but not all items included are abbreviated.
xii THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

Delbriick,Richard,Antike Portrats(Tabulaein usum scholarum,editae sub cura IohannisLietzmann,VI).

Bonn, 1912
- - Die Miinzbildnissevon Maximinusbis Carinus(Herrscherbild, III 2). Berlin, 1940
- - SpdtantikeKaiserportraits
(Studienzur spdtantikenKunstgeschichte, VIII). Berlin and Leipzig, 1933
de De'los,faite par l'e'colefranVaised'Athenes.Paris, 1909 -
Delos = Explorationarcheologique
AEh•riov= 'ApXatlooylKOv AEXATov
Ap&ypaC = Ap6ypa, MartinoP. Nilsson dedicatum(Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom. Series
altera,I). Lund and Leipzig, 1989
Encyclopediephotographique de l'art, III = Encyclope'diephotographique de l'art, III, Le Musie du Louvre,
Grace(suite), Rome. Editions "Tel". Paris, 1938
25 Jahrerdmisch-germanische Kommission= FilnfundzwanzigJahrerimisch-germanische Kommission,heraus-
gegeben von der rdmisch-germanischen Kommission des archiologischen Instituts des deutschenReiches.
Berlin and Leipzig, 1930
Goldscheider,Ludwig, RomanPortraits(Phaidonedition). New York, 1940
Graindor,Album= Paul Graindor,Album d'inscriptionsattiquesd'e'poque imperiale.Universite de Gand,
Recueil de travaux publi6spar la faculte de philosophieet lettres, fasc. 53 and 54. Gand,1924
Graindor,Cosmates= Paul Graindor,"Lescosmbtesdu Mus6ed'Athenes",B.C.H., XXXIX, 1915,pp.241-401
Graindor,HerodeAtticus = Paul Graindor,Un milliardaireantique:HirodeAtticuset sa famille.Cairo,1930
Graindor,Paul, Athenesde Tibereh Trajan.Cairo,1931
- - Athenes sous Auguste. Cairo, 1927
- - Athenes sous Hadrien. Cairo, 1934
- - Bustes et statues-portraitsd'Egypte romaine. Cairo, n. d.
Gross,Walter, Bildnisse Traians (Herrscherbild, II 2). Berlin, 1940
Guidi,Annuario,IV-V, 1921-22 = GiacomoGuidi,"I1murovalerianoa S. DemetrioKatiphorie la questione
del Diogeneion",pp. 33-54
Hekler, Bildniskunst= Antal Hekler, Die Bildniskunstder Griechenund RSmer.Stuttgart, 1912 (also in
English:Greekand RomanPortraits.New York, 1912 and in French: Portraitsantiques.Paris, 1913)
Hekler,Die Antike,XVI, 1940 = Antal Hekler, "Philosophen-und Gelehrtenbildnisseder mittlerenKaiser-
zeit", pp. 115-141
Hekler,Arch.Anz., 1935 = Antal Hekler, "Neue Portratforschungenin Athen", cols. 398-407
Hekler,Jahreshefte, XXI-XXII, 1922-24 = AntalHekler,"Studienzurr6mischenPortriitkunst"pp. 172-202
Herrscherbild = Das r6mischeHerrscherbild, herausgegebenvon Max Wegner, ArchiologischesInstitut des
deutschenReichs.
Hesperia= Hesperia,Journalof the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudies at Athens
Hinks, RogerPackman,Greekand RomanPortraitSculpture.London,BritishMuseum,1935
I.G., II2 = InscriptionesGraecae,II-III (editiominor,Berlin,from1913), InscriptionesAtticae Euclidisanno
posteriores,edited by JohannesKirchner
I.G., IV2 = InscriptionesGraecae,IV (editio minor,Berlin, 1929), InscriptionesArgolidis,edited by F. Hiller
von Gaertringen
Jahrb. = Jahrbuchdes deutschenarchidologischen Instituts
=
Jahreshefte Jahreshefte des 3sterreichischen Institutesin Wien
archdiologischen
Johnson, Corinth, IX = Franklin P. Johnson, Corinth, IX, Sculpture 1896-1923. Cambridge, Mass. 1931
Jones, Catalogue = Henry Stuart Jones, A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures preserved in the Municipal
Collections of Rome: I, The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino. Oxford, 1912; II, The Sculptures of the
Palazzo dei Conservatori.Oxford, 1926
Judeich, Topographie2= Walther Judeich, Topographie von Athen, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft.
2nd edition. Munich, 1931
Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Magazzino = Guido von Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Sculture del magazzino del Museo
Vaticano. (Monumenti Vaticani di archeologia e d'arte, IV). Vatican City, 1937
Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Rom. Mitt., XLI, 1926 = Guido von Kaschnitz-Weinberg, "Studien zur etruskischen
und friih-rPmischen Portratkunst", pp. 133-211
Kerameikos = Kerameikos, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Archkiologisches Institut des deutschen Reichs.
Berlin, 1989-
Kunstmuseets Aarskrift, Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen.
Laurenzi = Luciano Laurenzi, Ritratti greci (Quaderni per lo studio dell'archeologia, diritti da R. Bianchi-
Bandinelli, III-V). Florence, 1941
 ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY xiii

L'Orange,Studien = Hans Peter L'Orange,Studien zur Geschichtedes spdtantikenPortrats(Instituttet for

sammenlignendeKulturforskning.Series B: Skrifter,XXII). Oslo, 1933
Magnesiaam Maeander= Magnesiaam Maeander:Berichtifberdie ErgebnissederAusgrabungenderJahre
1891-1893,von CarlHumann:Die Bauwerkebearbeitetvon Julius Kohte: Die Bildwerkebearbeitetvon
CarlWatzinger.KdniglicheMuseenzu Berlin. Berlin, 1904
Me'langesGlotz= Me'langesGustaveGlotz.Paris, 1932
Me'langesPicard = Me'langesd'arche'ologieet d'histoireoffertsh CharlesPicard.Paris, 1949 (takes the place of
Revuearchdologique, vols. XXIX-XXXII, series 6, 1948).
Michalowski,B.C.H., LXX, 1946 = KasimierzMichalowski,"La fin de l'art grec",pp. 385-392
Michalowski,De'los,XIII = KasimierzMichalowski,De'los,XIII, Les portraitshelle'nistiques et romains.Paris,
1932
Mitt. d. Inst. = Mitteilungendes deutschenarchdiologischen Instituts,from 1948
Mon. Ant. = Monumentiantichipubblicatiper cura della[reale]accademianazionaledei Lincei
Mithsam,Alice, Die attischenGrabreliefsin riimischerZeit. Diss. Berlin, 1936
Notopoulos,Hesperia,XVIII, 1949 = James Notopoulos,"Studies in the Chronologyof Athens under the
Empire",pp. 1-57
Oliver,James H., TheAthenianExpoundersof theSacredand AncestralLaw. Baltimore,1950
Olympia= Olympia;die ErgebnissedervondemdeutschenReichveranstalteten Ausgrabung,herausgegebenvon
Ernst Curtiusund FriedrichAdler. Berlin, 1890-97
Olympische Forschungen= Olympische Forschungen,herausgegebenvon Emil Kunze.Archiiologisches Institut
des deutschenReichs. Berlin, 1944-
Paribeni = RobertoParibeni,II ritrattonell' arteantica.Milan,1934
Pauly-Wissowa,R.E. = Paulys Real-Encyclopiidie der classischenAltertumswissenschaft,
Neue Bearbeitung.
Stuttgart, 1894-
Poulsen,Catalogue= FrederikPoulsen,Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek,KatalogoverAntikeSkulpturer.Copenhagen,
1940
Poulsen,Frederik,Greekand RomanPortraitsin EnglishCountryHouses.Oxford,1923
- - Problemederr3mischenIkonographie(Det Kgl. Danske VidenskabernesSelskab,Archaeologisk-kunst-
historiskeMeddelelser,II, 1). Copenhagen,1937
- - R mischePrivatportriits und Prinzenbildnisse(Det Kgl. DanskeVidenskabernesSelskab,Archaeologisk-
kunsthistoriskeMeddelelser,II, 5). Copenhagen,1939
Poulsen, KunstmuseetsAarskrift,1929-31 = FrederikPoulsen, "SengraeskePortraetter",pp. 16-44
-is Ev
= FlpcKT-rIK&
ITpaKTi'K& 'AS•Ivac• 'ApXactoooyKliS 'ErTapEioas
Reinach,RJpertoire = SalomonReinach,Repertoire grecqueet romaine.Paris, 1897-1930
de la statuaire
Richter, Gisela M. A., Roman Portraits.New York, 1948
Richter, Proceedingsof the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,XCV, 1951 = GiselaM. A. Richter, "Who Made
the Roman Portrait Statues - Greeksor Romans?", pp. 184-191
Richter, ThreeCritical Periods = Gisela M. A. Richter, ThreeCriticalPeriods in GreekSculpture.Oxford,
1951
Riemann, Kerameikos,II = Hans Riemann,Die Skulpturenvom 5. Jahrhundertbis in r6mischeZeit, Kera-
meikos,II. Berlin, 1940
Rodenwaldt, C.A.H., XII = Gerhart Rodenwaldt, "The Transition to Late-Classical Art", pp. 544-570
Rodenwaldt, Jahrb., XLV, 1930 = Gerhart Rodenwaldt, "Der Klinensarkophag von S. Lorenzo", pp.116-189
Rodenwaldt, Jahrb., LI, 1936 = Gerhart Rodenwaldt, "Zur Kunstgeschichte der Jahre 220 bis 270",
pp. 82-113
Rodenwaldt, 76 Wp. = Gerhart Rodenwaldt, "Griechische Portrits aus dem Ausgang der Antike", 76 Winckel-
mannsprogramm,Berlin, 1919
Rom. Mitt. = Mitteilungen des deutschenarchdologischenInstituts. Riimische Abteilung
Schefold, Bildnisse = Karl Schefold, Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker. Basle, 1948
Schweitzer = Bernhard Schweitzer, Die Bildniskunst der riimischen Republik. Leipzig, 1948
Smith, Catalogue = Arthur Hamilton Smith, A Catalogueof Sculpture in the Department of Greekand Roman
Antiquities, British Museum, III. London, 1904
Studien zur spitantiken Kunstgeschichte= Studien zur spdtantikenKunstgeschichte,im Auftrage des deutschen
archiiologischenInstituts, herausgegeben von Hans Lietamann und Gerhart Rodenwaldt
Swift, A.J.A., XXV, 1921 = Emerson H. Swift, "A Groupof Roman Imperial Portraits atCorinth",pp. 142-159,
248-265, 337-363
Symbolae Osloenses = Symbolae Osloenses, auspiciis societatis graeco-latinae
xiv THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

Thera= Thera: Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in den Jahren1895-1902, herausgegeben

von F. Frhr. Hiller von Gaertringen.Berlin, 1899-1909
Tillaegtil Billedtavler= Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek,Tillaegtil Billedtavleraf AntikerKunstvaerker, I, Copenhagen,
1915; II, Copenhagen,1941
Toynbee,J. M. C., SomeNoteson Artistsin the RomanWorld(CollectionLatomus,VI). Brussels,1951
Treu,Olympia,III = GeorgTreu,Olympia,III, Die Bildwerkein Stein und Thon.Berlin, 1897
Vessberg= Olof Vessberg,Studienzur Kunstgeschichte derramischenRepublik(Skrifterutgivna av Svenska
Institutet i Rom, VIII). Lund and Leipzig, 1941
Wegner= Max Wegner,Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (Herrscherbild,
II, 4). Berlin, 1939
West = Robert West (Gra~fin von Schlieffen-Renard),RcimischePortriitplastik, I, Munich,1933; II, Munich,
1941
Winter, Altertiimervon Pergamon,VII = Franz Winter, Altertiimervon Pergamon,VII, Die Skulpturenmit
AusnahmederAltar-Reliefs,Berlin, 1908
Zadoks-Jitta,AncestralPortraiturein Rome= Annie N. Zadoks-JosephusJitta, AncestralPortraiturein Rome
and theArt of theLast Centuryof the Republic(AllardPiersonStichting, Bijdragen,I). Amsterdam,1932
 INTRODUCTION
the very heterogeneous mass of sculpture of the Roman period that has been un-
W•ithin
earthed in the Americanexcavations of the Athenian Agora, the portraits form a group of
more than routine interest. A number of those here presented have already appeared in pre-
liminary campaign reports by the field directors of the excavations,' and a few of those published
in the earlier years have been further discussed by other scholars in various contexts.2 Never-
theless, none has been so thoroughly studied nor so accurately evaluated as not to reward
additional study in connection with the other members of the Agora series.
Strictly speaking, the sixty-odd portrait heads, torsos and fragments published here form a
group only in the sense that they all have numbersin the inventory of Agora finds and that the
marbles themselves reside in the Agora Museum and storerooms.Nearly but not quite all were
found in the recent American excavations of the ancient market square and its immediate
environs. Many of them must originally have stood in the marketplace itself, but the contexts
in which they were found are often so far removed in time from the period when the portraits
stood intact that we must allow also for the possibility of some wanderings in space. In the
course of centuries portraits have undoubtedly strayed both into and out of the Agora area.
Fragments of grave monuments from the Kerameikos turn up fairly frequently in the excava-
tions, and bits of sculpture and inscriptions from the Acropolis are not unknown there. On the
other hand, at least one portrait which certainly stood in the Agora itself is now in the Athens
National Museum,having been found in the Germanexcavations of the end of the last century,3
and so is not included in the present study. Even so, a group such as that with which we are
confronted, in spite of its inevitable lack of coherence, offers definite practical advantages for
study. The group is small enough to permit a detailed examination of each piece and yet large
enough to give a representative samplingof the main types and styles of portrait sculpture that
occur in Athens during the five centuries that it covers.
Hitherto the study of Athenian portrait sculpture in the Roman period has sufferedfrom too
much selectivity. Certainpieces have been singled out for attention because they were outstand-
ing in quality or because they illustrated points of special interest; the mass of portraits, the
necessary backgroundagainst which these special cases ought to be evaluated, has been largely
neglected. In only one case, that of the valuable series of portraits of kosmetai published by
Graindor,4has a whole group of Athenian portraits been the object of a systematic study. Many
more portraits must be treated in this way before it can be said that we know enough about
Greek portraits of the Roman period to draw positive conclusions concerning their relation to
Roman portraits in general.

1 Nos. 1, 3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 25, 28, 35, 36, 87, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 51, 56, 57, 64.
2 Nos. 1, 3, 7, 28, 56, 64.
3 Portrait head of Antoninus Pius found near the Temple of Apollo Patroos (Hekler, Arch. Anz., 1935, cols. 404f., figs. 7
and 8).
4 B.C.H., XXXIX, 1915, pp. 241-401.
1
2 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
The publication of material from an excavation, even when, as here, the finding-placesoffer
little reliable evidence for chronology, has a certain special value. The excavator must examine
each piece impartially and face the problems that it presents. Though he may sometimes find
himself wishing that a given piece could be buried again quietly and forgotten, he can never
have his wish. If a single marble refuses to conformto his most cherishedtheory, it is the theory,
not the marble, that must go. And if there are questions to which he cannot find the answers,he
must be willing to say so openly and to offer the questions to others for solution. The Agora
portraits interest us not because they are unique, but because they are representative. Most of
the questions that they raise cannot be answeredon their evidence alone. The detailed attention
here given to this single group may seem disproportionate when one considers that a much
larger mass of material of equal value lies neglected in the storerooms of the Athens National
Museum. It is to be hoped, however, that the present study will demonstrate sufficiently the
interest of such material to inspire similarly detailed treatment of other Athenian portraits in
the future.

FINDING-PLACES

The finding-placesof the Agora portraits may be grouped under six main headings:
I. Herulian debris.This includes not only destruction levels on the floors of houses destroyed
by the northern barbarianswho sacked Athens in A.D. 267 but also filling of wells and holes
with debris resulting from the cleaning-up that took place following the disaster. Portraits in
this group must have been made before 267.
II. Thefilling of the"'Valerian Wall." This wall, built aroundA.D. 280 as a fortificationbehind
which the Athenians might retire in case the barbarians returned, was constructed almost
entirely of re-used material. The two outer faces of the wall consisted largely of squaredblocks:
architecturalmembers of buildings that had sufferedin the invasion, inscribed stelai, the shafts
of herms and the like. Into the filling were thrown smaller stones of irregular shape, a class
which occasionally included portrait heads. Since the two Agora portraits from the "Valerian
Wall" are very much earlier than the third century, the terminus ante quem that the wall
provides is of no importancefor their dating, but for some of the portraits of kosmetai discovered
in 1861 in another section of the wall, the date of the wall itself is of vital importance.5
III. Late Roman walls and fills. This includes post-Herulian structures and deposits down to
and including the seventh century.
IV. Medieval and modernwalls and fills. By far the largest number of portraits comes from
such contexts.
V. Marbledumpsin theexcavations.A piece for which such a provenienceis listed is one which,
being fragmentary and poorly preserved, was not recognized at the time it was unearthed as
being worth recordingbut was later noticed and brought in to be inventoried. Only one of our
portrait heads comes from such a context. It is probable, however, that many fragments from
the shattered torsos of draped portrait statues of the Roman period now form part of the marble
piles in the Agora.
VI. Unspecifiedcontextsoutside the Agora. Occasionally a workman employed in the excava-
tions brings in a piece of sculpture that has been found outside, and this is then inventoried
6 On the question of the date of the "Valerian Wall" and the portraits from it, see below, p. 91.
 INTRODUCTION 3

along with the Agora finds and kept in the Agora storerooms. Two such foundlings have been
included here, since they are pieces of some interest which would not otherwise be published.
The following list will make it clear how much (and how little) relation there is between the
date of most pieces and their finding-places:
I. Herulian debris
No. 11 Julio-Claudian
14 Early Flavian
19 Trajanic
30, 35, 36 Antonine
38 A.D. 215-225
41 A.D. 225-250
48 (?) Gallienian
II. "Valerian Wall"
7 Augustan
23 Hadrianic
III. Late Roman
3 First century B.C.
8 Julio -Claudian
15, 18 Flavian
20 Trajanic
25, 56 Hadrianic
26 (?), 28, 57-61, 63 Early Antonine
39 A.D. 215-225
45 Period of TrebonianusGallus
47 Third century (?)
51 Second half of third century (?)
IV. Medieval and Modern
4, 5, 6 First century B.C.
9, 10 Julio-Claudian
16, 17 Flavian
21, 22 Trajanic (2)
24, 27 Hadrianic
29, 81, 32, 33, 84 Antonine
1 Hadrianic or Antonine copy of a classical Greek type
37 Caracallan
40, 42 A.D. 225-250
43 A.D. 235-250
44 Middle of third century
46 Gallienian (2)
49 Gallienian
50, 52 A.D. 270-3800
53, 54, 55 Fourth century
64 Fifth century
1*
4 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
V. MarbleDump
12 Julio-Claudian
VI. OutsidetheAgora
2 First century B.C.
13 Julio-Claudian.

MATERIAL
All our portraits are of marble. The ancient Agora must have been rich in bronze portrait
statues of both the Greek and the Roman periods, but it was scarcely to be expected that any
of these would survive intact in a city which has been constantly inhabited since antiquity and
has undergone so many vicissitudes. What was not stolen by the civilized plunderersof Athens
or destroyed by the barbarianwould almost certainly have been melted down in times of need,
military or economic. Thus we find in the excavations only the remains of bronzes too utterly
shattered to have been salvageable even in antiquity, tiny corroded bits that may once have
been parts of great statues, but what parts we are no longer able to discern."It is only the works
in marble, a cheaper material than bronze and used by and large for less important portraits,
that have come down to us in a form that can still be studied. By far the greater number of
these are made of Pentelic, that is to say of white Attic marble.7The quality of the stone used
varies greatly, and there is generally a direct relationshipbetween the quality of the marble and
the carefulness of the workmanship. One portrait, No. 4, a bust belonging to the first century
B.C., is of fine-grainedParian marble. Three, Nos. 19, 20 and 23, are of coarse-grainedisland
marble. These three are perhaps all products of a single workshop and belong to a period when
a hard, polished surface finish was considered desirable. Not only in their finish but in their
modelling these portraits are reminiscent of work in hard, colored stone. It may be that the
beginning of a vogue for porphyry in the time of Trajan8had something to do with the prefer-
ence for this kind of surfacein Trajanicand early Hadrianic sculpture.

FORMS OF PORTRAITS
Most of the portraits in the round had originally one of three forms: (1) portrait statues,
either carved in one piece or with the head carved in a separate piece and set into the torso;
(2) busts; and (3) herms. A fourth possibility, that of reclining figures on the lids of sarcophagi,
cannot be ruled out, though there is no evidence to suggest specifically that any of our heads
comes from such a figure.9In Roman times the majority of full-length statues had the heads
carved separately from the bodies. A poorergrade of marble could be used for the perfunctorily
carved draped torso; only the head demanded a more expensive material.'0 The junction be-
6 The
fragments of bronze statues from the debris of the Odeion (Thompson, Hesperia, XIX, 1950, p. 82, pl. 54) are better
preserved than most.
7 In Athens a piece of white marble which is not island marble may generally be assumed to be Pentelic. It is perhaps
more difficult to identify Pentelic marble with certainty in the case of pieces not known to have any connection with Attica.
8 See Delbriick, Antike
Porphyrwerke(Studien zur spdtantikenKunstgeschichte,VI, Berlin and Leipzig, 1932), p. 19.
9 Sarcophagus heads are generally life-sized and carved in very much the same style as other
portrait heads, so that there
is no sure criterion for distinguishing them. They sometimes have extra marble at the back of the neck to
strengthen it,
but this is not always the case (cf. L'Orange, Studien, figs. 14 and 23).
10 Carving of the head separately, though especially common in the Roman period, was not confined to it. The economy
made possible by the use of small blocks of marble and the greater ease with which a head could be worked if set at a con-
venient height on the workbench led to the use of this method even in classical Greek works in which the
draped torso was
carved with great care and in marble of good quality (e. g. the torso of the Athena from the east pediment of the
Hephaisteion,
Thompson, Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, pl. 51). Cf. also B. Ashmole, J. H. S., LXXI, 1951, p. 19, note 40.
 INTRODUCTION 5
tween the flesh and draperyat the base of the neck was the logical place for the joint between
the two pieces. The torso was hollowed to receive a tenon on the bottom of the piece which
comprised the head and neck. Sometimes this tenon was deep and had the form of a frustum of
a cone (e.g. Nos. 17, 23 and 51); sometimes it was made to fit a shallower cutting (e.g. Nos. 11
and 24). Ten Agora portrait heads in all (Nos. 1, 10, 11, 17, 23, 24, 35, 36, 51 and 52) have tenons
for setting into drapedtorsos. It is typical of the fortunes of excavation that none of the portrait
heads that we have in the Agora fits any of the torsos that are preserved. Of the latter the most
notable is that of a colossal statue of Hadrian in armor (No. 56). Several male torsos in civilian
dress (Nos. 57-62) wear the himation. The only one wearing a toga is a strangely square late
Roman statue of a magistrate (No. 64) which had the head (now lost) carved in one piece with
the body.
The female portraits must have employed the familiar Hellenistic draped types that were
repeated over and over in Roman portrait statues of women. A fragment to which no head can
be assigned (No. 63) repeats a type that occurs at Olympiain no less than four female statues of
Roman date. Roman statues in which the head was covered by a veil or by a part of the mantle
drawn up over the head generally had the top part of the head-covering carved in one piece
with the head," but the Agora has at least one example (No. 33) of a differentscheme: the face
and the front of the neck, together with what hair appearsfrom beneath the edge of the mantle,
are carved in a separate piece which is dowelledinto the hollow hood of the mantle behind. This
scheme is found in several female statues of the first century B.C. from Magnesia on the Mae-
ander.12 A second Agora portrait (No. 12) probably comes from a statue of this type, though it
is too fragmentary to permit a certain decision.
Heads of statues carved all in one piece naturally break off at the neck, as do those which are
broken from busts or herms. In the many cases in which we have only the head, broken off in
this way, it is impossibleto say which of these forms the portrait originallyhad. The two fourth
century female heads (Nos. 54 and 55) probably come from statues, since they have extra
marble left at the back of the neck to strengthen it.13There are five portrait busts in our collec-
tion: Nos. 4, 7, 14, 19 and 29. One complete portrait herm (No. 25) is preserved, and fragments
of the upper part of the herm shaft survive in a second (No. 39). It is quite probablethat many
of our heads that are broken off at the neck come from herms. Since the rectangularherm shaft
forms a useful building stone once the head is removed, many heads of herms must have been
deliberately knocked off for this purpose. Probably not all were so fortunate as the heads of the
kosmetai which were used in the same structure with their shafts; many must have been left
lying or thrown away as rubbish. Inscriptions tell us that others besides kosmetai had portraits
in herm form'4 and also that the same person might be representedboth in a herm and in a full
length statue.'5 Herms were commonly set up out of doors and in porticoes, palaestrae and the
like (though they occur also in the atria of houses at Herculaneumand Pompeii); the bust was
essentially an indoor form of portrait. Statuettes also might serve for the adornmentof houses.
Our No. 9, a miniature portrait head, and No. 20, about one-third life-size, may have belonged
to statuettes.
11 A
good example in which the jointing shows clearly in the photograph is Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 173, showing a portrait
of Augustus in the Terme.
12
Watzinger, Magnesia am Maeander, p. 199, figs. 198-200.
13 Being fourth century, they would not be from sarcophagus figures, since sarcophagi were no longer made in Attica
by that time.
14E. g. our No. 25.
15
E. g. I.G., II, 3667 and 3668.
6 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

Only a few of our portraits are definitely over life-size. Nos. 17, 28, 34 and 54 are sufficiently
above the normal dimensions to suggest that the persons represented are something more than
ordinary Athenian citizens. Some other portraits (e.g. Nos. 39 and 44) exceed only slightly the
measurements of the average human face and so have been counted as life-sized, since that is
how they appear to the casual observerand that is no doubt how they were thought of by their
sculptors. No. 39 is a herm portrait and No. 44 may well have been one too. It is possible that
less necessity was felt here to adhere strictly to natural size than in heads of statues, which
would requirebodies in proportion.
Those portraits in relief that we have very probably come from gravestones which originally
stood in the Kerameikos cemetery. In none of them is there more preservedthan the head, or a
fragment thereof, with some of the immediately adjacent background adhering. Since these
heads are intended as portraits, they are included here although they are generallyless individual
than the full-scale portraits in the round and cannot be so closely dated. Nos. 5, 6, 13, 21, 22,
27 and 32 belong to this class. Their positions in the chronological series must be taken as
approximate at best.
Nos. 30, 35, and 36, all life-sized portraits belonging to the Antonine age, are unfinishedand
provide interesting illustrations of the final stages of work in the completion of a Roman
portrait. No. 35 shows that the eyes and eyebrows were engraved before the final smoothing of
the flesh surfaces. Measuring-pointssurvive on both Nos. 35 and 36. These would seem to imply
mechanical reproduction of the portraits from models, but the minor variations in details and
dimensions that are apparent when one comparesdifferentAthenian copies of a single portrait16
make it clear that portraits were copied with rather more freedom than were the masterpieces
of classical art that were reproducedfor the Roman market. The presenceof unfinishedportraits
in the Agora is not surprising, since we know that there were sculptors' workshops near by.17
Moresurprisingis the fact that all three of these Antonine portraits were found in contexts that
can be associated with the Herulian invasion which took place about a century after they were
made. No. 36 was found in a hole in the floor of a sculptor's workshop; it may have been kept
at first as a sample or for a possible re-use of the marble and later as a curiosity. No. 35, found
with debris from a dwellinghouse,seems to have been used as decoration, or perhaps again as a
curiosity, an "antique."
Of the actual sculptors who created our portraits we know very little.'8 Some portraits show
technical similarities that suggest a common source, but in making such rapprochements I
have preferredto use the word "workshops,"as being a ratherindefinite term and so appropriate
to the present state of our knowledge. I am inclined to believe that if one were to subject all the
Athenian portraits of the Roman period now extant to a systematic technical and stylistic
analysis it might be possible to distinguish hands and workshops as they are distinguished, for
example, in the study of red-figuredvases. This kind of study would be particularly interesting
if it could be combined with a study of other types, e.g. copies and architectural sculpture, in
order to determine how far they overlap and to what extent they influence one another. Such
16 Compare, for example, our No. 49 with the portrait in Eleusis of which it is a replica
(P1. 46, e). The distance from
the mouth-line to the upper wrinkle of the forehead is 0.12 m. in the Eleusis head and 0.129 m. in the
Agora head. In the
two portraits L'Orange, Studien, cat. nos. 11 and 12, figs. 25-27 and 29 (no. 12 shown in our
P1. 46, d) there is a 5 mm.
difference in the distances from the mouth-line to the forehead hair.
17See below, p. 49 and p. 92, note 16.
18 P. Graindor,in
Athlnes sous Auguste, pp. 210-245 and Athines de Tib1rea Trajan, pp. 171-188 lists and discusses those
Athenian sculptors of the periods in question whose names have come down to us in inscriptions or in
literary references. The
names of sculptors who made portraits are mostly found inscribed on bases or headless torsos. The makers of the
heads that he mentions are all anonymous. portrait
 INTRODUCTION 7
a large-scale commissioner of sculpture as Herodes Atticus'9 must have had a whole army of
sculptors working for him, and these may well have tended to work together in what could be
called a "school." In times of less prosperity things may have been done on a more individual
basis.

SUBJECTS

The variety of persons representedin the Agora portraits is even greater than the variety of
their forms. Romans and Greeksof both sexes and of all ages are portrayed. The list of kinds of
honorary inscriptions given in I.G., II2, 31, Table of Contents, VII, Class 8 may be taken as a
list of possibilities: (1) Roman emperors, (2) kings and queens, (3) Attic magistrates, priests
and sacred boys and girls, (4) kosmetai, gymnastic officials and ephebes, (5) men distinguished
in civil and military life and men famous in arts and letters, (6) other Greek men, (7) Attic
women, (8) Roman men of note, (9) Roman women, (10) illustrious men of an earlier age
honored in Roman times. Portraits of all these classes may have been set up in or near the
Agora in ancient times. Section (1), Roman emperors(which includes empresses),is represented
by No. 33 in our collection and doubtless by several others not so readily identifiable. (2) is
probably not represented by any of the pieces that we have, though we cannot, of course, be
sure of this. Sections (3) and (4) probably comprise a large proportionof our portraits. No. 25,
the only one identified by an inscription, represents Moiragenes the son of Dromokles, the
eponymosof the tribe Hippothontis. Several portraits (Nos. 3, 17, 24, 29, 40, 43 and 49) have
fillets or wreaths which probably mark them as priests, though No. 17 may possibly be an
emperorso summarily renderedthat we have not succeeded in identifying him. The subject of
the female portrait No. 35 must be either a priestess or a lady of the imperial family. Three
heads of little boys, Nos. 41, 42 and 46, may represent children initiated into the Eleusinian
Mysteries. No. 44 shows so strong a resemblanceto a portrait of an ephebe from the "Valerian
Wall" that it seems not at all unlikely that it represents a kosmetes, and there may well be
other portraits of kosmetai among our group. No. 1 is the only head we have belonging to
group (10), though there is ample evidence that others existed.20
That the women in our group are outnumbered by the men (15 out of 55 heads) is not sur-
prising. Except for gravestones, where the representationof the sexes would naturally be about
equal, there are fewer occasions for honoring women with portraits. It is probable, accordingly,
that among our female portraits there is a higherproportionof members of the imperial family
to native Athenians than there is among the men. It can be only by chance that there are no
female portraits of the third century preserved in our series, for there are a number of them
among the unpublishedportraits in the Athens National Museum.
Nos. 20 and 45 may represent negroes, though neither is so skillful and unmistakable a race
portrait as the fine Attic head in Berlin identified by Graindoras Memnon, one of the favorite
pupils of Herodes Atticus.21 In these Athenian portraits no inference as to the social status of
the person portrayed can be drawnfrom his race. The lady, No. 20, wears an elaborateheaddress
that suggests rank or at least wealth. No. 45, on the other hand, is so thug-like in appearance
that it is easier to think of him as an athlete than as a member of the upper social circlesof a
university town.
"1 Cf. K. Neugebauer, Die Antike, X, 1934, pp. 92-121.
20 E. g. a headless herm inscribed "Anakreon" (Inv. I 2061). H. A. Thompson, Hesperia, XIX, 1950, p. 132, suggests that
the seated figures in front of the Odeion represented famous philosophers of the past.
21 Blimel, Rimische Bildnisse, R 73, pl. 45; Graindor, B.C.H., XXXIX, 1915, pp. 402-412.
8 THE ATHENIAN AGORA:PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
For the most part, however, the people of our portraits must be the members of the late
Athenian aristocracy, people whose pride in their ancestry increased as their achievements in
the contemporary world diminished in importance. It is easy to laugh at these pompous little
people as we read the lengthy genealogies on their statue-bases and the absurdly archaistic
verse in which they too often couch their feeble claims to immortality, but when we look at their
faces sympathy follows scorn. It is true, as they say, that they are the descendants of Perikles
and Themistokles, and it is equally true that we are theirs. No countenance from the great age
of Greecewhich holds our admiration today as it held theirs then is so close to the spirit of our
own times as the face of the little boy, No. 46, who looks out at the world with anxious eyes,
unreassured either by the noble blood that runs in his veins or by the wreath of the antique
religion that encircleshis head.
 CATALOGUE

1. PORTRAITOF HERODOTOS(?) Plate1.

Inv. S 270. Foundin 1933builtinto a modernhousejust southof the southend of the Stoa of Attalos
(Q 18).*
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.45 m., W. 0.21 m., H. chin to crownapproximately0.28 m.
Nose brokenoff; eyes, mustacheand lowerlip chippedand battered;minorscarsin foreheadand beard.
Publishedby T. L. Shear,Hesperia,IV, 1935, p. 402, figs. 28-29; A.J.A., XXXVII, 1933, p. 544, fig. 5 A;
A. Hekler,Arch.Anz., 1934, col. 260, no. 4, figs. 5-6.
The head is made with a tenon, a frustum of a cone in shape, for setting into a draped statue.
The clothing was evidently drawn up close around the neck in front as well as in back. It is the
portrait of an elderly man, bearded and with a long fringe of hair drapingthe sides and back of
his otherwise bald head. The highest part of the head is far forward, and the top slopes back
from there to join the rather flat back of the head. The hair in back is only roughly blocked out,
as is the small strip of the back of the neck that is visible between the hair and the edge of the
tenon. That on the sides falls in two ranges of lank, flame-shapedlocks coarsely carved with the
flat chisel. In front of the ears the divisions between the locks are emphasizedby deeper channels
cut with the drill. Only the lobes of the ears are visible. The emergenceof the hair from the bald
dome of the head is indicated by scratchy engraved lines. The beard is long, extending almost
to the base of the throat. A very deep, coarse channel divides it down the center, and the locks
curl away symmetrically to either side with a corkscrew motion. A single flame-shaped lock
descendingfrom the hollow below the lower lip masks the upper part of the channel. The drill is
freely used to separate the locks of the beard. The mustache covers the upper lip and droops far
down past the cornersof the mouth.
The modelling of the face, like the carving of the hair and beard, is coarse and simplifiedbut
not lacking in vigor. The concavity of the temples continues across the lower part of the fore-
head in front, emphasizingby contrast the powerful dome above. Two thin, horizontal wrinkles
of equal length and a third, shorter one below them are harshly engraved in the forehead. Two
vertical wrinkles separate the eyebrows, which dip at their inner ends and arch high at the
outer. The eyebrow hairs seem to have been indicated by coarse diagonal incisions. The eyelids
are heavy, and there is a strong groove below the lower lid. Crow's-feet at the corners of the
eyes are representedby perfunctory engraved lines. The pupils of the eyes are not drilled, nor
are the irises engraved. The sunken cheeks and the deep diagonal depressions below the eyes
suggest the age of the subject and enhance his gravity of mien. The flesh of the face shows
crisscrossmarks of a fine rasp. The marks of a coarserrasp appear on the sides of the neck.
In spite of its coarseworkmanshipand its present battered condition, this portrait conveys an
extraordinarilynoble impression. Hekler has identified the head as Herodotos,' and the argu-
* For the grid reference, in parentheses, see Plate 49.
Notes for each catalogue number will be found at the end of the item.
 10 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
ments in favor of this identification seem to outweigh those against it. Ourhead has in common
with the three inscribed herms that form the main basis for our iconography of Herodotos2all
but one of their essential features. The herms show the same high forehead with the same pat-
tern of wrinkles and the same long side locks that curve out beside the temples to give more
width to the head at this point. The strong, simple pattern of the features and the striking
division of the beard into two spiral sections confirm the resemblance. A minor difference
appears in the direction of the spirals of the beard, parallel in the herms and symmetrically
opposed in the Agora portrait. The single major differenceis that while our portrait shows the
top of the head bald the herms show it covered with broad flat locks. The rather inorganic
arrangementof these locks, which appear to be plastered onto the head instead of growing out
of it, and the way in which they detract from the effectiveness of the portrait incline one to
accept Hekler's suggestion that they are a copyist's addition.3 Coins of Halikarnassos of the
Roman period which show a portrait of Herodotos depict him generally with some hair above
the forehead, but exceptional examples reveal a bald forehead and curly hair.4Apparently there
was no constant tradition in this matter. Except for the Agora head, all the surviving sculptural
portraits of Herodotos repeat the type of the herms, including the hair on the top of the head.5
Evidently this was the popular version in Roman times, but the Agora portrait may well
convey more of the ultimate original on which all are based. The original of the herm portrait
has generally been considered a creation of the early fourth century,6 but dissenting opinions
place it on the one hand in the late fifth century' and on the other in late Hellenistic or even
Roman times.8
Some resemblance in technique to the sculptures belonging to the second period of the
Odeion in the Athenian Agora suggests an early Antonine date for our copy, though it might
conceivably be Hadrianic or even Trajanic. For the form of the statue we have no evidence
except the fact that the drapery surroundedthe neck closely. This suggests that a chiton was
worn under the himation, a scheme common both in seated and standing statues in Roman
times.

x Arch. Anz., 1934, col. 260, no. 4. Shear, Hesperia, IV, 1935, p. 402, mentions this identification without accepting it,
preferringto leave the portrait unidentified. Graindor, Bustes et statues-portraitsd'Egypte romaine,p. 74, note 301, is equally
skeptical.
2 (1) A double herm in
Naples in which Herodotos is joined with Thucydides (Bernoulli, G.I., I, pls. 18-19; A.B., 128-9;
Laurenzi, pl. 5, no. 19). (2) A single herm in Naples (Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 16; Bernoulli, op. cit., pl. 19). (3) A single
herm in New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (P1. 43, a; Schefold, Bildnisse, p. 161, 2 - erroneously said to be in
Naples; Richter, Handbookof the Classical Collection[New York, 1930], p. 272, fig. 192; Graindor, Bustes et statues-portraits
d'gypte romaine, no. 26, p. 74, pl. 23).
3 Loc. cit., above, note 1.
4 Hair on forehead: Bernoulli, op. cit., Miinztafel II, no. 6; Schefold, op. cit., p. 173, no. 22. Bald forehead: Bernoulli, loc.
cit., no. 5; Schefold, loc. cit., no. 23.
5 Other copies exist in Berlin (Bltimel, Katalog der antiken Skulpturenim Berliner Museum, V, K 196, pl. 8); in the Alber-
tinum in Dresden (A.B., 767-768); and in Castle Erbach in Germany.
6 Laurenzi, p. 93, no. 19;
7 MargareteBieber informs Bliimel, op. cit., p. 4, no. K 196.
me that she believes the portraits of both Herodotos and Thucydides were created during the
period of the Peloponnesian War.
8 Schefold,
Bildnisse, p. 160. The resemblance in the herm portraits to the portrait of Thucydides seems to me scarcely
great enough to justify the suggestion mentioned by Schefold that the Herodotos type was invented in Roman times as a
pendant to the latter, and in the Agora portrait little resemblance to the Thucydides is to be seen. The addition of hair, if
it is an addition, might conceivably be explained, however, by the desire to create a
a double herm with the Thucydides, avoiding the awkwardjuxtaposition of hair and bald type that would combine gracefully in
head in the joint between the heads.
The decorative simplification of the split beard is possibly an argument in favor of a
classicistic origin. Early fourth century
portraits (e. g. Lysias, Plato) generally show a simple mass for the beard. Late fourth century and Hellenistic works often
divide the mass, but in a freer form than we have here. The portrait on the coins of
Halikarnassos, which Schefold, loc. cit.,
calls early Hellenistic, shows this freer sort of division. So far as I am aware, we have no documented case of the
invention
of a portrait in Roman times to serve as a pendant to a traditional
type.
 CATALOGUE 11
2. PORTRAIT OF A MAN, FIRST HALF OF THE FIRST CENTURY B.C. Plate 2.
Inv. S 608.Broughtin by a workman
fromoutsidethe Agoraarea,January,1936.
Pentelic marble.H. 0.23 m., W. 0.19 m.
Headbrokenoffin middleof neck.Topof head,madein a separatepiece,nowmissing.Thejointsurface,
a smoothplaneat an angleof about450to thefrontplaneof the face, dressedwith a smallpoint;heavier
pickmarksvisiblein the centralportion.In the centera smallrounddowelholeabout1 cm.in diameter.
Thisjoint surfacethe best preservedpart of portrait.All the sculpturedsurfacevery muchcorrodedand
battered.
The portrait is that of a man in early middle age. The head is thrown back and looks up toward
the properright, the neck extended forward. The Adam's apple projects and the tendons of the
neck are stretched. The hair follows a more or less Polykleitan scheme, with a parting above the
forehead like that of the Doryphoros (though here shifted a bit left of center), pointed locks in
front of the ears, and the back hair swept forward on the neck. The hair seems to have been
only slightly curly. The modelling of the locks within the hair mass has disappearedcompletely
in the erosion of the surface. The foreheadis sharply divided by a horizontal center line, and the
lower part projects heavily, most of all in the center over the nose. There was no indentation in
profile between the forehead and the nose. The eyes are deep-set and rather small, rolled back
under the brows in the Scopasian manner that shows the under surface of the upper lids as
wider than their front surface. There are crow's-feetat the outer cornersof the eyes and diagonal
creases from the sides of the nose past the corners of the mouth. The mouth is pulled down
slightly at the corners.
This head shows in exaggerated form the divergence of the axes of head and neck that is
characteristic of the "centrifugal" style in Hellenistic portraits,' while the heavy features, the
deep-set eyes and the uplifted gaze convey the "pathetic" expressionthat regularlyaccompanies
such centrifugal composition. This style has its origin and finds its best expressionin the second
century B.C.,2 but the closest parallels to our head are two portraits in the Athens National
Museum in which the style has grown hard and linear and which are therefore regularly dated
in the first century B.C., some time before the middle of the century.3These two portraits were
found together and are of similar workmanship,so presumably contemporary. The portrait of
the younger man (P1.43,b) has the same bulging lower forehead as has our head, the same wide-
based nose and the same heavy toruses of eyebrowsoverhangingthe small eyes. In the age of the
person represented our head stands between the young man and his older companion. The
portrait of the older man goes much farther than ours in the representationof the wrinkles and
small surface irregularities;it may well be that the influence of Roman Republican portraiture
is making itself felt here.4 Ours, on the other hand, like the head of the younger man, is totally
Greek in its effect. Both are strongly generalized, and there is no reason to think that either
renders very exactly the features of the person portrayed. The workmanship of our portrait,
though the condition of the surface makes it difficult to judge, seems to have been of the same
summary kind that produced the other two heads. The renderingof the hair on the side of the
head in the portrait of the older man, particularly the ends of locks swept forward behind the
ears, is very like that of our head. The Doryphoros forehead hair does not occur in the other
heads, but such a Polykleitanism is by no means surprisingin a work of the first century B.C.
A parallel for the top of the head added in a separate piece of marble is to be found in a
first century B.C. portrait in Thera where the top part is still preserved.5
Our portrait, even if one considers it apart from its unhappy state of preservation, can
scarcely rank as a significant work, but as a purely Hellenistic portrait from the period when
12 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
Roman concepts of portraiture were just beginning to influence Greek style, it forms a good
starting-point for our Roman series.
1 Cf.
2
Michalowski, Delos, XIII, p. 4.
E.g. the splendid bronze portrait head from Delos (Michalowski,op. cit., pp. 1 ff., pis. 1-6) and the portrait of Attalos I of
Pergamon (Altertilmervon Pergamon,VII, pis. 31-2; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 75 a and b) with which Michalowski compares it.
s Athens N.M. 320 (the older man, A.B. 885-6; Lawrence, Later GreekSculpture,pl. 59 b; Schweitzer, fig. 81; Buschor,
Das hellenistischeBildnis, fig. 38) and 321 (A.B. 399-400; Lawrence, op. cit., pl. 59 a). In A.B. the head of the younger
man is called Julio-Claudian, that of the older man possibly earlier. For the current dating to the second quarter of the 1st
century B.C. see Buschor, op. cit., p. 46 and Schweitzer, p. 72 (N.M. 320 only).
4 Cf. Schweitzer, p. 72: "eine griechische Stilgrundlage, die von einer ersten Einwirkung des stadtr6mischenPortriits
getroffen wird."
6 Thera, I, pl. 17, p. 224, no. 2.

3. PORTRAIT OF A PRIEST, MIDDLE OF THE FIRST CENTURY B.C. Plate 3.

Inv. S 333.FoundApril3, 1933in a verylateRomandeposit,just outsidethewheelrace
of thefifthcentury
millin the southeastcornerof the Agora(P 13).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.29 m., W. 0.20 m., H. chin to crown0.235 m.
Headbrokenoffin middleof neck,the breakslantingupwardto the back.Nosebrokenoff;earsbattered,
the rightmorethan the left; chin,rightcheek,rightside of neckand diademon both rightandleft sides
chipped.Themarblediscolored by brownspotsonleft sideof head.
Publishedby T.L. Shear,Hesperia,IV,1935,pp.402-7,figs.30-31(morebrieflyin A.J.A.,XXXVII,1933,
pp. 308f., pl. 38, 1; ArtandArchaeology,
XXXIV, 1933,p. 288); Poulsen,Problemederrimischen Ikonographie,
p. 29,pls.54-55;Laurenzi,RitrattiGreci,pl. 43,no. 110;Buschor,Dashellenistische
Bildnis,pp.49, 55,fig.44.
The portrait shows a middle-aged man wearing on his shaven head a rolled diadem which
continues around the back of the head without a knot. Above the roll the surface is finished
with the rasp. This is more likely due to the fact that the top of the head was not expected to
be seen than because hair was to be indicated by paint. There is no suggestion of hair in the
very realistically modelled area below the roll and in front of the ears (note the large vein that
appears here on each side of the head), and, in view of the elaborately plastic renderingof the
eyebrows, it seems unlikely that the hair, had it existed, would have been so neglected. Behind
the ears below the roll the rasped surface remains similarly unsmoothed. The face is smoothed
but not polished. The head may well have belonged to a herm portrait with a cloak passing
around the back of the neck, for a bit of a fold of drapery survives above the break at the back
of the neck on the right side.
The features are carved with a strong realism that, nevertheless, shows itself oddly indepen-
dent of the underlying bony structure of the face. Only in the broad swelling of the cranium
above the hollow temples does the bone come into prominence. Elsewhere it is the flesh that
builds its own patterns, with trenchant folds and arbitrary swellings, seeking strength through
asymmetry and a calculated harshness of line and shadow. The asymmetry may be observed
in every system of folds: in the lines across the forehead, the crow's-feet at the corners of the
eyes and the wrinkles under the eyes and in the deeper folds around the nose and mouth. The
eyebrows are emphatic both in their asymmetry and in their independence of bony structure.
In their inner halves they droop low over the eyes, the left lower than the right. The shaggy
hairs in the right eyebrow are wavy while those in the left eyebrow are chopped in with stiff,
almost vertical strokes. In the outer halves there are no hairs, merely a flattish straight arris
slanting sharply down. The eyes themselves are strongly plastic, with heavy lids and the
eyeballs very much curved, but they float in the surroundingflesh instead of being socketed
into the bone. The cheeks are heavy and tend to sag; the weight of the flesh is suggested by
 CATALOGUE 13
the downward wrinkles in front of the right ear. The lower outline of the face is a jowl-line
rather than a jawline.
In its brief published career this head has been dated anywhere from the second half of the
second century B.C. to the forties of the first century B.C.1It is, indeed, just individual enough
not to fall into any of the ready-made categories, but certain features connect it with a number
of well-known portraits, and by plotting these connections we may arrive at some notion as
to the position our portrait occupies.
In its independence of bony structure and in the importance given to lines carved into the
flesh the portrait shows a resemblanceto a group of Roman republicanportraits dated around
70 B.C., carved in a style which Schweitzer terms the "wood-cut" style.2 This is a basically
Roman style in which the external impact of experience on the features plays the primary role.
The face is conceived of as carved from without by the accidents of life, rather than as moulded
from within by the essential character of the man as it is in Greek portraits. It is interesting
to note that Schweitzer sees an influence from this class of Roman portraits on the Egyptian
portraits of priests, a class which must in turn have influenced our portrait. The rolled diadem
indicates that our man is a priest.3 The shaven head is a mark of the priests of Isis.4 Whether
or not the man is himself an Egyptian we cannot say, but the facial type is close enough to that
of the Egyptians to make it a possibility.5
In Greek portraits the influence of this Roman style is traceable to varying degrees. A head
from Delos that plainly shows the effect of the Roman style nevertheless retains, as Michal-
owski points out, the Greek use of the bony structure of the face as a foundation for the com-
position of the portrait."In this respect our portrait is more Romanized than the Delian, but
a comparison with any of the genuinely Roman examples7shows instantly how great a gap
still exists between Greek and Roman. Whereas in the Roman faces the myriad wrinkles,
swellings and depressions have an entirely fortuitous look, as though they had really been
engraved by the hand of Chance,those in the Greek portrait betray a clear plan in the mind of
the sculptor. The lines are fewer and clearer than in their Roman counterpart, and each asym-
metry is a calculated variation between two systems that are basically equivalent.
The wrinkles in front of the ear that suggest the sagging of the flesh occur in at least one
portrait of the Roman group which we have discussed above,s but they are more strikingly
representedin two members of the group which immediately follows it in Schweitzer's scheme,
that which he has collected around the portrait of Norbanus Sorex, the actor favorite of Sulla.9
If the famous bronze portrait from Pompeii representsnot this Sorex but his son,10 Schweitzer's
dates for the group as a whole must be lowered, but his succession of styles need not be altered.
As in the case of other Greek portraits of the first century B.C., it is difficult to determine the
absolute chronologicalposition of the Agora head. Until the complicated history of the Greek
portrait in this period of influence and counter-influencehas been worked out in more detail
than it has been at present, the most we can do is to place the Greekportrait somewherein the
wake of the Roman style which it follows. How much of a lag may exist in terms of actual years
remains a matter of conjecture. A portrait found in Corinth (P1. 43, c) belongs essentially to
the same type;" and the fact that its subject is likewise a priest of some sort is shown by the
wreath of thin leaves that he wears on his head, though the unshaven head suggests that he
served some other divinity than the one served by our Agora priest. Being found in Corinth,
this portrait has as an absolute terminus post quem the refoundation at the order of Julius
Caesar,probably in 45 B.C., of the city destroyed by Mummiusin 146 B.C.12
14 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
Two other Athenian portraits are related in type to ours though neither is absolutely identical
with it in style. A head found in Athens but now in Copenhagenhas the shaven head of an
Egyptian priest but no fillet.l3 The forehead is furrowedwith an elaborate pattern of wrinkles,
and the surface of the face is divided by numerous ups and downs of the flesh. Schweitzer
classes this head with those of his portraits of old Romans that are done in what he calls the
"toreutic" style, the companionto this "wood-cut" style. In degree of Romanization the Copen-
hagen portrait stands between the Agora priest and the portrait from Delos mentioned above;
the tortured surface gives a thoroughly Roman impression, but more remains than in the Agora
head of the essentially Greekstructure that underliesit. In actual date the Copenhagenportrait
cannot be far removed from our head; it may be a few years earlier. A portrait in the National
Museum in Athens invites comparison with the portraits of bald or shaven-headed priests,
though the head in this case is not bald but has very short hair only lightly engraved into the
smoothed surface of the head.14The portrait shows some similarity of style and facial structure
to the Agora priest, especially in the carving of the eyes and the area around them. Here too
asymmetry is deliberately aimed at, and a determined realism manifests itself in the large
ungainly ears. The whole is cruder and simpler than the Agora portrait and is probably to be
dated somewhat later, a less creative offshoot of the type. All in all, the portrait from the Agora
is the best Athenian representative of the type, besides being one of the most interesting of all
the portraits discovered in the Agora excavations.

1 T. L. Shear dates it simply to the Republican Period. F. Poulsen, Problemeder r5mischenIkonographie,p. 29, finds the
Agora portrait so close in "expression and style" to a portrait in Copenhagen which he identifies as that of Attalos III that
he feels it m'ustbe considered a Hellenistic work of the second century B.C. Buschor, Das hellenistischeBildnis, p. 49, groups
it with works which he attributes to the forties of the first century B.C.
2
Schweitzer, pp. 72ff.
3 F. Poulsen points out (M6langesGlotz,p. 752) that the roll is originally the distinctive attribute of the gods, from which
it becomes the property of priests. He makes no distinction in significance between the type which is tied in back like a regular
diadem and that which is simply a hoop. He suggests that where the roll is double or triple it must be made of metal. In the
case of a simple one such as we have here it is impossible to distinguish the material.
4 Shear, Hesperia, IV, 1935, pp. 404f., suggested as parallels certain portraits which he took to represent priests of Serapis.
None of these parallels is exact, however, and indeed the whole question of the insignia of priests of Serapis is far from
settled. Whether or not the rolled diadem with the star in front was worn by priests of Serapis, it has nothing whatsoever
to do with our portrait. The star does not occur outside Egypt (Graindor, Bustes et statues-portraitsd'Egypte romaine, p. 57),
and the Egyptian portraits which have it do not have shaven heads. No fixed connection has been established between the
shaven head and the simple type of roll that our portrait wears. The Athenian shaven priest in Copenhagen(see below, note 13)
is without any sort of stephane; a shaven priest from the Agora dating from the third century after Christ, No. 43, wears
a wreath of laurel. The Roman portraits identified as priests of Isis commonly have a scar on the head, but no wreath or
diadem. Probably with priests of Isis as with priests of the imperial cult the headgear varied from place to place. The shaving
is a more basic matter.
5 Though the majority of the priesthoods of Isis in Greek cities must have
been held by Greeks, an inscription from
Priene shows that an Egyptian priest was required there for certain elements in the ritual (Nilsson, Geschichteder griechischen
Religion [Mifller,Handbuchder Altertumswissenschaft,Munich, 1940], II, p. 120; Inschriften von Priene, 195).
6 Delos, XIII, pp. 29ff., pls. 23-24. Michalowski is interested especially in emphasizing the basically Hellenic qualities
of the work in spite of the Roman influence observable in its surface details. Schweitzer, on the other hand, stresses the fact
that a Roman style, specifically, the "toreutic" style of his group called "portraits of old Romans" is plainly reflected in the
Greek work (p. 78).
SE.g., Schweitzer, figs. 91, 92, 96.
8 Ibid., figs. 85-86.
9 Ibid., figs. 100-101.
10See below, No. 4, note 1.
11 This portrait will be published by Edward Capps, Jr. in his forthcoming volume on sculpture found at Corinth in the
excavations of the American School of Classical Studies (Corinth,IX, ii, no. 93, Inv. 1445 a).
12 For the ancient sources, see Pauly-Wissowa, R.E., Suppl. IV, col. 1033. The date is generally given as around 44 B.C.,
but William B. Dinsmoor informs me that calculations based on the ancient sources indicate 45 B.C. as the actual year of
the foundation.
13 Billedtavler,pl. 34, no. 458 a; Schweitzer, figs. 93 and 107; A.B. 1151-2; Buschor, Das hellenistischeBildnis, fig. 43.
14N.M. no. 331; A.B. 813.
 CATALOGUE 15
4. PORTRAIT BUST OF A MAN, MIDDLE OF THE FIRST CENTURY B.C. Plate 4.
Inv. S 739.FoundMay2, 1936in an earlyByzantinecontextnorthof the Athens-Piraeus
electricrailway
(G3).
Parianmarble.H. 0.43m., W.0.171m., H. chinto crown0.23m.
Fine-grained
Nosebrokenoff andchinandmouthchipped.A piecegougedout of centerof forehead.Bothearsbroken
off.Tenonandedgesof bustchipped.
The portrait, a bust made with a tenon for setting into a base, represents a mature man with
a full face und thinning hair. The bust is narrow; it does not extend as far as the outer ends of
the clavicles on either side. The head is turned slightly toward the right. The hair, very flatly
carved in short, linear, pointed locks, is nowhere thick or long enough to alter the contours of
the head. It is brushed vertically down on the left side of the head, sweeping toward the right
on the back of the head and forward on the right side. The front hair recedes deeply at the
temples, leaving a narrowtongue of very short hair in the center. The surface of the broad face
is most carefully smoothed, and there is little to break its continuity. A bit of original surface
that survives above the bridge of the nose shows that there was a horizontal wrinkle in the
forehead. Two vertical frown-wrinklesbetween the eyebrows and a deep line across the bridge
of the nose suggest that the original expressionwas severe. The lips appear to have been tightly
closed. The eyebrows are broken away, but a concave surface above the right eyebrow suggests
that they projected. The deep-set eyes are small, with thin, fine lids, and the surfaces surround-
ing them are smoothly concave. At the outer cornersof the eyes are crow's-footwrinklesso tiny
as to be practically invisible. Similarly fine wrinkles, like thin scratches, appear on the sides of
the neck. The modelling is nowhere neglected; it is simply smoothed and subdued beyond the
point where it can be effective.
It is hard to find an exact parallel for the surface quality of this portrait, but the cut of the
hair and the facial type are most closely paralleled in portraits of Roman type dated to the
second third of the first century B.C. Schweitzer's "Sorex group"' has the same short-cut hair
which does not alter the outline of the skull and the same hairline, with an are over the forehead
receding into cornersfrom which the side hair swings down in an S-curve to a point in front of
the ears. Even the horizontal fold across the bridge of the nose and the two vertical frown-
wrinkles seem to be typical of the Sorex group, though Sorex himself does not have them.2 In
the Sorex group Schweitzer remarks the disappearance of the deeply carved linear detail
characteristic of the immediately precedingphase of Roman portraiture.The underlyingplastic
structure of the head is now expressedthrough strong highlights and shadows in a continuously
moving surface.3 In our portrait only the negative part of this change seems to have taken
place. The "wood-cut" detail has been smoothed away, but the contrast of light and shade has
not yet taken its place. This may be due partly to the influence of the material; the very fine
white marble invites refinement of surface and minimizes the effect of shadow. It may be due
also in part to a failure on the part of the Greek sculptor to understand completely the Roman
style which he was following. That the Greek artists were not always so unsuccessful, however,
is shown by a fine head from Cyprusin the British Museum, which even surpasses our bust in
the delicacy of surface detail (note the minute engravedlines in the hair and the thinness of the
eyelids), but in which the strong clear structure beneath the subtly moving surface results in
an individual portrait of great power.4
Very fine engraved lines, similar to those of the Agora bust, occur on a bronze bust in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York which belongs, at least in origin, to the Sorex
16 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

group.5These lines, appearingin the forehead, at the comers of the eyes and on the neck, are
somewhat more visible on the surface of the metal than on the white marble of our bust, but
they are of the same type. The New York bust was dated by Poulsen around 70 B.C.,6 but
Schweitzer considers it an Augustan adaptation, placing the original near 60 B.C.' The fact
that so many portraits assigned on the basis of their types to the late Republican Period are
not to be considered as originals makes it very difficult to base dating on surface technique. In
this respect the Greek portraits are more reliable than the Italian, there being little reason for
subsequent copies of the portraits of Romans set up in Greece, but one cannot be absolutely
sure, even in the case of our present bust, that the date of the type is the date of the piece itself.
The brushingof the hair in differentdirections on the two sides of the head occurs in portraits
of Cicero,and continues down into the Augustan period, becoming, in fact, a sort of court style
of the early Augustan age.8 It seems not to be common among the portraits which have the
short, shallowly carved needle-pointed locks of our bust, and its occurrencehere may indicate
that the Agora portrait is somewhat later than others of its group. It is, in any case, interesting
to have a portrait of this type appear in Athens, a further demonstration of the thorough inter-
penetration of Greek and Roman portrait sculpture in the first century B.C.
1
Schweitzer, pp. 79ff., figs. 99-104, 107-110. M. Bieber, History of theGreekand Roman Theater (Princeton, 1939), p. 323,
calls the Sorex of the preserved portrait, who is designated in the inscription as a player of secondary roles in comedy, a
son of rather than identical with the favorite of Sulla who was archimimus. This would lower Schweitzer's dates by twenty
to thirty years and would so lessen the apparent gap between the Roman group and its Greek offshoots.
2 Schweitzer, figs. 104, 109, 110.

S Ibid., pp. 83f.

4 Hinks, Greekand Roman Portrait Sculpture, 18 b (B.M. no. 1879), dated around 50 B.C. (p. 16).
5 Richter, Roman Portraits, no. 8 (with bibliography prior to 1948); Schweitzer, E 3, pp. 79, 81.
" F. Poulsen, Problemederrmischen Ikonographie,pp. 21 f.
? Schweitzer, pp. 79, 143.
8 R. Carpenter, Hesperia, XX, 1951, pp. 42f.

5. FRAGMENTARYPORTRAITHEAD OF A MAN (FROMA RELIEF), FIRSTCENTURY B.C.(?) Plate2.

24,1938in a lateByzantinepithosin the northeastpartof theAgoraarea(N8).
Inv. S 998.FoundFebruary
Pentelic marble.H. of fragment0.265 m., H. chin to crownca. 0.23 m.
Noneof backgroundpreserved.Breakin backslantsdownandforwardto endin the frontof the neckjust
belowthe Adam'sapple.Frontof headbrokenoffdownto the eyes.
Nosepartlybrokenawayandlipsandchindamaged.Thewholesurfacemuchweathered.
The head seems to have faced directly out from the plane of the relief, with the face somewhat
downcast. The back and top of the head are roughly carved, the top showing a central ridge
where the sculptor worked downwardfrom both sides in the awkward space close to the back-
ground. Apparently none of the hair was finished in more than an impressionistic way. Pointed
locks survive in front of the ears, and it looks as though the hair were all brushed forward. The
ears project a little; they are coarsely modelled but realistic. The modelling of the face is soft,
without sharp edges, grooves or furrows. The lower eyelids are wide; the eyeballs are not drilled.
The cheekbones are prominent. The lips are fleshy and loosely parted.
The man portrayedis evidently still fairly young but beginning to show the signs of approach-
ing middle age. A fairly close parallel for the style is to be found in the portrait head of the
"Pseudo-Athlete" from Delos,' which displays similarly wide lower eyelids and the same soft
modelling of the face and the heavy, loosely parted lips. Our head may accordingly be placed,
 CATALOGUE 17

though the evidence for its dating is slim at best, in the first century B.C. In all likelihood it
belonged to a large grave relief.
1Michalowski, De'los,XIII, p1s. 17-18.

6. PORTRAITHEAD OFA WOMAN(FROMA GRAVERELIEF),FIRST CENTURYB.C. Plate4.

Inv. S 841. Found March12, 1937 in a Byzantine context, in a cisternbetweenthe Hephaisteionand the
Athens-Piraeuselectricrailroad(E 5).
Pentelic marble. H. of fragment 0.215 m., H. chin to crown 0.17 m., D. of relief ca. 0.10 m.
Head brokenoff from body at base of neck. A small bit of backgroundpreservedbehind the head and
anotherin front higherup. Back of slab seemsnot to be preserved.Nose brokenaway; eyebrows,mouth and
chin chipped.The wholepiece muchweathered.Edges of mantle also chipped.
The head, in three-quartersfront view turned toward the proper right, represents a middle-
aged or elderly woman who wears a mantle drawn over her head and a mournfulexpression on
her face. The hair is pulled straight back from the forehead. Eyebrows and eyes dip low at the
outer corners. The eyelids are thin and the eyes narrow. The cheekbones are prominent, the
cheeks sunken, the jaws heavy. The surface of the face seems to have been smoothed, though
marks of the rasp remain on the sides of the left cheek.
This head, which is expressive despite its battered condition, is hard to date closely, but in
spirit and type it resembles portraits of Roman matrons of the late Republic and early Empire,
such as the head of an elderly woman in Copenhagen'or the portrait of Viciria in Naples.2The
figure may well have been representedin the Pudicitia type, a favorite type for elderly women.3
1 Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 201; A.B. 173-4.
2
Hekler, op. cit., pl. 205 a. Naples National Museum no. 6168.
3 Cf.
Vessberg, pls. 27, 99.

7. PORTRAIT BUST OF A YOUNG MAN, 10 B.C. - A.D. 20 Plates 5-6.

Inv. 8 356. Found May 5, 1933, the head built into the "ValerianWall" south of the Stoa of Attalos, the
bust in a pit nearby, also in a context of the third centuryafter Christ(R 15).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.48 m., W. of bust 0.39 m., H. chin to crown0.24 m.
Mendedfromtwo joining fragments:(1) head, brokenoff just below chin and (2) bust and neck. A sizable
chip missingfromleft side of neck; minorchips all alongbreak.End of nose, upperpart of right ear and rim
of left ear brokenoff. Chipsand scratchesin eyebrow,nose and left cheek. Somelime incrustationand brown
discolorationunderchin, on cheeksand on back of head. Surfacein good conditionotherwise.
Publishedby T. L. Shear,Hesperia,IV, 1935, pp. 407-11, figs. 32-34, pl. 5; A.J.A., XXXVII, 1933, pp.
544f., fig. 5B; Art and Archaeology, XXXIV, 1933, p. 289; Poulsen, ROimische und Prinzenbild-
Privatportraits
nisse, p. 26, pl. 25, fig. 34.
The portrait is in the form of a bust with a tenon at the bottom for setting it into a base, now
lost. The bust extends not quite to the outer ends of the clavicles. The chin is slightly raised and
the head turned to the proper right so that the face appears in three-quartersview when the
bust is viewed from in front. The head in profileis flat on top, with the skull projecting strongly
in back. The hair is arrangedin overlappingcurved locks of a Polykleitan type carved with the
chisel in a hard, flat manner out of the smooth hair-cap. The front hair, brushed down over
the forehead, forks above the inner corner of the right eye. The side front hair is brushed back
from the right temple, forwardonto the left temple. In front of each ear is a short, pointed lock
whose strands are brushed back with a downward twist just at the end. Behind the ears the
2
18 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
back hair sweeps forward,its ends curled up on the right side of the head and slightly down on
the left, leaving in each case a wide, bare space behind the ear. The back hair is cut short
at the neckline, and the flat locks on the back of the head lie in perfunctory rows with alter-
nating directions.
Prominent cheekbones and jaws make the face a polygon. It is well modelled, in free, un-
classical planes. Edges, as of eyebrows, eyelids and lips, are not quite the sharp arrises of
classical and classicizing work nor yet are they blurred completely away as in much late Hel-
lenistic work.' The nose, mouth and chin are carved in a central ridge that projects far out
beyond the planes of cheeks and eyes. In the side view this creates the impressionthat the eyes
are very deep-set. A slight asymmetry in the shape of the eyes is apparent only when one views
the face straight on. The neck is thin, with a very prominent Adam's apple- and strongly
defined muscles.
This striking portrait was first published as a portrait of Augustus.2 This identification,
though accepted by some scholars,3 has been vigorously contested by F. Poulsen.4It is certain
that the work does not belong to any of the established official types reflected on coins and
distributed in sculptured replicas throughout the Empire. Further, it is so divergent in certain
simple physical traits from the Augustus that we can reconstruct from these wide-spread
representationsthat it seems impossible to consider our bust an originalportrait modelled from
the Emperor's own features.5Our portrait has certain features that do belong to Augustus: the
angular eyebrows with a faint suggestion of contraction where they meet the high bridge of the
nose, the large eyes, wide open and evenly rimmed by their lids, the long, slightly aquiline nose,
the high cheekbones, the very mobile mouth with its deep-set corners, the wide jaws and the
small, but salient chin. The fact that, for all this, the face does not impress one instantly as
being that of Augustus is due largely to the profile of the upper lip, which, instead of being of
moderate length and descending straight and flat from the base of the nose, is excessively short
and curls outward, projecting considerably beyond the lower lip. The shape of the head in
profileis certainly not that of Augustus. It is clear from all the coins and from such sculptured
portraits as do not idealize the head into Polykleitan proportionsthat Augustus's head was high
and narrow from front to back.6 The cranium of the Agora head with its strong projection in
back is more like that of Julius Caesar.Furthermore,the pose of the head with the slender neck
stretched forward,the Adam's apple very prominent and the chin raised does not correspondto
any of the standard types for portraits of Augustus.
A bust from Nola in the MetropolitanMuseum of Art in New York (P1. 43, d) has the same
long slender neck with prominent Adam's apple and carries the head in a similar pose.' It also
resembles our portrait in the prominence of the cheekbones and the jawbones and the slight
concavity of the side planes of the cheeks between them. The upper lip is short, though not so
much so as in our head. The New York portrait was accepted by O. Brendel as a portrait of
Augustus earlier than the Prima Porta portrait,8though Miss Richter is more cautious as to its
identification.
A bust of a thin young man in Thera repeats and intensifies the features which separate the
Agora and New York busts from the standard portraits of Augustus.9 Thereis the long thin neck
with prominent Adam's apple, the raised chin, the short upper lip and the prominent cheek and
jawbones with hollow cheeks. The hair over the forehead has the same arrangement as in the
New York portrait. The back of the head projects as in the Agora bust. The face appears
narrowerat the cheekbones and the mouth looks wider than in the other two portraits.
 CATALOGUE 19
These three heads do not resembleone another closely enough to appearto representthe same
person, and yet they show a family likeness. Are they portraits of related persons, i. e. members
of some branch of the imperial family, or are they portraits of unrelated persons which were all
made under the influence of a common type ? One wonders whether the iconography of the
Julio-Claudianhouse will ever be straightened out sufficiently to enable one to determine to
what extent private portraits of the period imitated portraits of the imperial family. Looking
at the New York bust one feels that it might very well be Augustus himself. Looking at the
Thera portrait one feels that it could not be. The Agora bust stands between them; with it
anything seems possible but nothing certain.
A great part of the trouble lies in the insufficiency of our knowledge of Athenian style in
portraiture during the Julio-Claudianperiod. If the Agora bust could be dated accurately, the
possibilities for its identification could be more clearly limited. A comparisonwith the portrait
of Augustus from the Julian Basilica in Corinth (P1. 43, f)10 reveals as many differences as
resemblances.There is a certain technical similarity in the carving of the eyes: the slight under-
cutting of the upper lids, the width and shape of the lower lids, and the continuity of the two
lids at the outer corners of the eyes. The incurving of the eyeball at the inner corner of the eye
and the position of the line here dividing the membrane from the eyeball is likewise paralleled
in this and another Corinth portrait which is probably somewhat later." The definite angle
at which the eyebrows meet the sides of the nose in the Agora bust recalls the classicism of the
CorinthAugustus and its relatives. Also the hair is carved in almost as hard a fashion as there.
But whereas the Corinthianportrait is both cold and dull, an illustration of Augustan classicism
at its worst, the Agora portrait is far from dull. First, the face is modelled in many more planes,
so that the surface is constantly moving and the lights and shadows give life to the marble, and
second, there is a fine tension in the design, especially in the lines of the profile, that holds the
thing alive. Even in the three-quarterfront view from which the bust was evidently intended
to be seen, the profile dominates. It was evidently the element around which the whole portrait
was composed. The head-on front view seems to have been the least considered of all. Besides
the rather strange effect produced by the projecting central ridge in which nose, mouth and
chin are carved, the eyes are obviously unsymmetricalin this view and the mouth looks squashy
and ill-formed. One cannot escape the impression that the Agora portrait is in some sense an
original creation made expressly for the form in which we have it. Either it is a portrait of a
local individual who sat for the sculptor himself or, if it representssome memberof the imperial
household, the portrait was created from incomplete data, perhaps only a profile sketch, which
left the artist a more or less free hand.
For such a combination of freedom with Augustan classicism logic might dictate one of two
dates: either (1) the portrait was made at the time when classicism was flourishing,in the last
decade of the first century B.C., and its relative freedom is to be explained by the fact that
it is not an official portrait (we do not at present know enough about Greek private portraits in
this period either to confirm or deny such an hypothesis) or (2) the work is to be dated in the
first decades of the first century after Christat a time when classicism was beginning to decline.
The hairdress, which ought to help in deciding between these alternatives, is actually not of
much use. The absence of the long hair on the back of the neck which was characteristic of
Tiberius and most of the imperial portraits of his period'2 suggests the earlier date, but other
features indicate that the coiffure must have been old-fashioned by the time the portrait was
made in any case. The clear space behind the ears harks back to the end of the Republic.13
2*
20 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
The general scheme of the hair arrangementwith the forked central mass over the forehead and
the side hair brushed in opposite directions on the two sides of the head is perhaps closest to
that of Agrippa,4 though none of the portraits of Agrippa shows such hard, perfunctory
carving of the locks. The pointed locks in front of the ears are common throughout the Julio-
Claudian period, but their being brushed back instead of forward is unusual. It finds its best
analogy in the portrait in the Louvre identified as Antiochus III, not a very helpful parallel.15
So long as we find so many partial parallels and so little that is really comparable, it seems
best for the time being to give up the attempt to fix on our portrait a definite name or even a
definite date. We shall leave it merely to take a place in the mocking gallery of unidentified
Julio-Claudians, those Protean princes (or are they private individuals) who as soon as we
seem to have grasped them change their semblance and look upon us with the features of
someone else.
1
E.g. the portraits of a man and his wife from Smyrna, the Athens National Museum (N.M. nos. 362-363; A.B. 539-40
and 883-4; Laurenzi, pl. 36, nos. 90-91); the pseudo-athlete from Delos (Michalowski,D6los, XIII, p1s. 17-18); and the son
of Laocobn (Horn, Rom. Mitt., LII, 1937, pl. 41, 2).
2 T. L. Shear, Hesperia, IV, 1935, pp. 407ff.
3 E. Buschor, Das hellenistische Bildnis, p. 59; Hekler, Arch. Anz., 1935, col. 399. Hekler seems also to
accept Shear's
attribution of our bust to Brendel's Type B, for he suggests comparison of it with the bust from Aquileia (Rom. Mitt., LV,
1940, p. 41, figs. 5-6; Brusin, Gli Scavi di Aquileia, pp. 109f., fig. 64). In point of fact the latter is as far from our head both
in scheme and in spirit as are the other examples of Type B. A Greek copy of Type B seems to exist in a portrait in Samos,
(Ath. Mitt., XXV, 1900, p. 166, no. 37; Curtius, Rom. Mitt., LV, 1940, p. 40). This repeats the proper hair formula though it
lacks the beard, and it seems to have captured the gloomy expression of its prototype. This portrait, however, like another
head in Samos, based on the Prima Porta type (P1. 43, g; Crome, Das Bildnis Vergils, figs. 54-55), modifies the type in the
direction of the late Hellenistic "pathetic" portrait.
4 Rimische Privatportratsund Prinzenbildnisse, p. 26. Poulsen cites this as an example of an erroneous identification made
on the evidence of the hair alone.
5 In any case, it is highly unlikely that Augustus would have found time to sit for his portrait in Athens, and if he had,
the result would no doubt have been a bronze statue, not a simple marble bust. The similarity of the Agora portrait to the
coin types cited by Shear, loc. cit., is hardly if at all greater than its similarity to the sculptured portraits of Brendel's Type B,
scarcely enough to support Shear's suggestion that the Agora portrait served as a model for the coin portraits.
6 Cf. H. P. L'Orange,
Apdcypa,p. 295.
SRichter, Roman Portraits, no. 27 (with bibliography to 1948).
8 Brendel, Ikonographiedes Kaisers Augustus, pp. 51f. dates the New York bust between 30 and 25 B.C.
9 Thera, I, p. 224, pl. 17.
10 E. H. Swift, A.J.A., XXV, 1921, pp. 142-157, pls. 5-7; less well illustrated in F. P. Johnson, Corinth,IX, p. 71, no. 134.
11 Swift, op. cit., pp. 248 ff., pls. 8-9; Johnson, op. cit., pp. 76 f., no. 137.
12 Cf. A.
Wace, M6langes Picard, II, p. 1090.
13 Cf. portraits of Caesar: Curtius, Rom. Mitt., XLVII, 1932, pls. 50, 53; Hekler, ArchaeologiaiErtesiti, LI, 1938, pl. 2;
Schweitzer, fig. 166; and Pompey: ibid., figs. 124-125; Michalowski, D'los, XIII, p. 14, fig. 8 (cf. also the head of a man from
the cistern of the House of the Diadoumenos, ibid., pl. 11, which the author compares with Pompey in this respect).
14 Cf.
Curtius, Rom. Mitt., XLVIII, 1933, pls. 30-33, 36-37. Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 174.
16
Ibid., pl. 123. Encyclopddiephotographiquede l'art, III, pls. 242-243.

8. PORTRAIT OF A LITTLE BOY, JULIO-CLAUDIAN PERIOD. Plate 7.

Inv. S 1287.FoundJuly25, 1947in a late Romandeposit,probablypostdatingthe Heruliandestruction
of A.D. 267, at the bottomof the valleybetweenthe Areopagusand the Hill of the Nymphs,west of the
northwestspurof the Areopagus (D 17).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.22 m., W. 0.17 m., H. chin to crown0.21 m.
Headbrokenoffjust belowchinin frontandjust abovehairlinein back.Frontof facemuchdamaged:
nosecompletelygone;mouthbrokenaway,exceptforindentationsat corners;chinchipped.Eyes and eye-
browschipped.Helicesof earsbroken.Faceweatheredto a granularsurfaceexceptfora smallpatchon right
cheekwhichshowsthatfleshwasoriginallycarefullysmoothed.Surfaceon backof headbetterpreserved.
Mentionedby H. A. Thompson, Hesperia,XVII,1948,p. 178.
The skull is very broad above the ears. The hair is brushed forward to frame the face; the
flat, pointed locks, not very curly, are summarily carved with the chisel. The ends above the
forehead are all brushed toward the left. The hair on the back of the neck is long enough to
 CATALOGUE 21
show a break in profile between the back of the head and the nape of the neck. The face,
broadest at the temples, tapers to a small pointed chin. The forehead is smooth and rather flat,
developed beyond the bulbous stage of early childhood, but the eyebrows overhang the eyes
only very slightly as yet. The eyes are round. As H. A. Thompsonhas pointed out, the breadth
of craniumand the prominent bony structure of the face are characteristicof the Julio-Claudian
family.' The shape of the face is comparableto that in the charminghead of Gaius Caesarfound
in the Royal Gardensin Athens,2 though the boy of our portrait is younger. The Agorahead does
not have the intricate arrangementof the forehead hair, a variation of that of Augustus, that
generally characterizes portraits of Gaius and Lucius,3 and since the features are so poorly
preserved positive identification seems out of the question. It is possible, on the other hand,
that this is a private portrait, but if it is, we must assume a strong influence from the well-
known portrait types of the young Julio-Claudianprinces.
1 Hesperia, XVII, 1948, p. 178.
2
Poulsen, R6mischePrivatportrtitsund Prinzenbildnisse,p. 39, pl. 87, and Hekler, Arch. Anz., 1935, col. 403, no. 3, figs. 5-6.
3 E.g. the portraitsin Corinth:E. H. Swift, A.J.A., XXV, 1921, pls. 10-11; F. P. Johnson,Corinth,IX, pp. 72f., nos.
135-136;L. Curtius,Mitt.d. Inst., I, 1948,pl. 25.

9. MINIATURE PORTRAIT OF A MAN, JULIO-CLAUDIANPERIOD Plate 7.

Inv. S 707. Found March 31, 1936 in a Byzantine context, in the area just north of the Athens-Piraeus
electric railway (F 3).
Pentelic marble. H. 0.115 m., W. 0.78 m., H. chin to crown 0.09 m.
Headbrokenoffat baseof neck.Nosebrokenoff;chinchipped.Brownishstainson rightsideof headand
patches of lime incrustation on face.
The head is tilted slightly toward the proper left, producing that slight divergence of the
axes of head and neck which is characteristicof the centrifugal style of the second century B.C.
and which seems to have been so beloved by the Greeks that they continued its use down into
imperial times. The left shoulder was higher than the right. The pose of the head makes it
unlikely that it comes from a herm. More probably it is from a statuette, or possibly from a
miniature bust.
The portrait represents a mature man with a lean, intelligent face. The hair is worn in the
style of the time of Tiberius, with short locks ending in a horizontal line across the top of the
forehead, little locks in front of the ears, and fairly long hair brushed forwardfrom the nape of
the neck. The hair on the back of the head is impressionistically indicated by isolated strokes
of the chisel, but the locks over the forehead are carefully delineated, showing a change of
direction and a crab's-clawpattern above the right eye. The face, in spite of the small scale, is
richly modelled, especially the forehead, and the muscles of the neck are carefully indicated.
Cheekbones,jaws and chin are prominent, and the polygonal outline of the face is matched by
the silhouette of the head, which is likewise angular. The widest point of the head is above the
ears. The marks of the rasp remain visible on the face. The size of the head scarcely permits
sharp edges and the use of the rasp has further tended to eliminate them. The resultant effect
is attractively impressionistic, and with the original color the piece must have been quite warm
and life-like.
There is not much point in trying to identify this little head, for it belongs to the general
category of Julio-Claudian princes, among which scholars experience sufficient difficulty in
identifying full-scale portraits. The fact that it is a miniature makes it somewhat more likely
22 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
that it does represent some imperial person rather than a private Athenian, but the head is
best enjoyed for itself, another bit of evidence that the Athenian sculptor, even in a period of
decline and cold classicism, retained the skill capable of infusing life and warmth into the
tiniest scrap of marble.

10. PORTRAITOF A WOMAN, JULIO-CLAUDIANPERIOD Plate8.

Inv. S 525.FoundFebruary26, 1935in a Turkishdepositin the centralpartof the Agora(M-N12).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.40 m., W. 0.20 m., D. 0.215m., H. chin to crownca. 0.23 m.
Nose,mouthandchinbrokenoff andthe breaksurfacesworn.Thewholeheadbadlybattered,its surface
wornandweathered.
The portrait is made with a short tenon to be set into a draped statue. The hair is parted in
the center and a band of waves is drawn back on either side, covering most of the ears. The top
hair is smooth of surface, but with an engraved indication of slightly waving strands. The back
part of the hair is merely blocked out; it looks as though the hair was thought of as twisted into
a pendant knot behind. If so, the end of it may have been carved on the main mass of the statue,
as it was in the following portrait, No. 11. Even before the surface was weathered and worn to
its present extent, the delineation of the hair seems to have been very sketchy and'shallow.The
large, round eyes are without engraved detail. The flesh seems to have been smoothed for the
most part, but traces of the rasp remain on the sides of the face and neck.
The band of waved hair drawn back to each side from a center part suggests a date in the
late Augustan or Tiberian period, provided that our lady is a Roman and that West is right in
saying that it was about this time that the nodus above the forehead was replaced in the por-
traits of imperial ladies by this simpler arrangement.' If, however, our lady was a Greek, the
portrait is not to be too strictly dated on the basis of the coiffure alone.2 In any case the solid,
undistinguished round face with its widely spaced round eyes finds parallels in a number of
portraits of ladies of the Julio-Claudianperiod, all as unidentifiable as this one.3
1
West, I, p. 127. A band of waved hair framing the face and separate from the hair on the top part of the head occurs
in coins of Livia (Bernoulli, R.I., III, pl. 32, 9-12). All these have the hair in a knot on the back of the head. It is to be
noted that Mattingly, B.M.C., Empire, IV, Introduction, pp. xvii f., note 2 now regards the Salus Augusta coin as a portrait
of Antonia rather than of Livia, taking the legend to refer to Antonia's part in frustrating the designs of Sejanus. If this is
true, the already difficult task of identifying the true portraits of Livia becomes even more so, for this has generally been
relied upon as the best of her coin portraits.
2 A. Mfthsam,Die attischenGrabreliefsin ramischerZeit, p. 19, dates some Attic
grave reliefs showing approximately this
coiffure (e.g. Conze, IV, no. 1856) after the middle of the first century. She assumes that it continued to be worn by Athenian
ladies of simple tastes who declined to adopt the extravagant "sponge-like curl-dressing"of the Flavian period.
8 E.g. Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 203 a (in Copenhagen, Ny-Carlsberg Glyptothek, no. 607, Billedtavler, pl. 49) and 203 b
(in Rome, Antiquarium), and a portrait from Gortyn in the museum at Herakleion, Crete, published by L. Marianiin A.J.A.,
I, 1897, p. 270, fig. 3, pl. 12. Mariani, recalling a passage in Ovid, "ora rotunda volunt" (Ars Amatoria, iii, 139), suggests
that the ladies of this period adopted the simple wave coiffure because it emphasized the round-facedeffect. It seems unlikely
that the Gortyn head is a portrait of Livia, as Mariani believed, but it may possibly represent the same person as the Copen-
hagen portrait. Comparein all these portraits the way in which the corners of the mouth are sunk into the plump flesh.

11. PORTRAITOF A YOUNG WOMAN, JULIO-CLAUDIAN PERIOD Plates 9-10.

Inv. S 1631.FoundApril15, 1952in the southeastcornerof the east stoa of the Commercial Agora,
immediatelynorthof the Churchof the HolyApostles,in a levelof the secondhalfof the thirdcenturyafter
Christ(P 15).
Pentelic marbleof choicequality. H. 0.38 m., W. 0.19 m., H. chin to crown0.226 m.
Tipof nosebrokenoff. Smallchipsmissingfromedgesof bothearsandfromhair.Surfacefreshandun-
weatheredbutwithsomerootmarks.
Publishedby H. A. Thompson,Hesperia,XXII, 1953,pp. 55-56,pl. 20b.
 CATALOGUE 23
This strongly idealized portrait head of a young woman was made with a shallow tenon for
setting into a draped statue. With the head is probably to be associated the right hand of a
woman holding a phiale mesomphalos which was found in an early Byzantine foundation near
the east end of the South Stoa.1 The mantle of the statue evidently extended high up on the
neck in back, and the pendant knot of hair at the nape of the neck was worked on the main
mass of the statue. The neck is extended slightly forwardand the head turned toward the proper
right. The lady wears her hair parted in a continuous center part that runs from the forehead
to the nape of the neck. The hair that frames the face is drawn back in loose waves to a point
above the ear on each side. Here it is twisted into two rolls that join at the back of the neck to
form the knot that hangs down. A narrow ribbon binds them together. The front waves are
formed of heavy soft strands carved in high relief with the chisel. Where the crests of the
waves adjoin the face, they are undercut. The hair on the top and back of the head is entirely
without relief; the slightly waved strands are simply drawn with the chisel in the smoothly
rounded surface of the head, crisply on the sides, more sketchily in back. The full, oval face
is broad at the top and tapers to a small chin. The forehead is classically smooth. The plane
below the conventionally arched eyebrows makes only a very obtuse angle with the plane of
the forehead, and the large round eyes are not deep-set. The eyelids are sharp-edged and
definite; they appear rather as frames to the eyes than as movable flesh capable of covering
them. The nose is thoroughly classicizing; its broad, high bridge continues the line of the
forehead with only the slightest dip between. The mouth, very small and delicate in proportion
to the rest of the face, is the most personal feature of the portrait. The lips are gently parted.
The flesh surface was finished smooth but not polished.
The coiffure is one of those that are illustrated in portraits of Antonia Minor on the coins
of Claudius.2It is similar to those of our Nos. 12 and 13, though it lacks the small curls that
frame the forehead in the former and the waves are less crisply artificial than in the latter.
Conceivably the less artificial version is the earlier, though much remains to be clarifiedin the
dating of the late Augustan and Tiberiancoiffures.The face shows the influence of the portraits
of Livia perhaps more than that of the Antonia portraits. The full cheeks and the wide round
eyes set far apart recall those of the statue of Livia in Pompeii3 and others related to it.4 The
soft front waves, too, are like those in the round-faced portrait of Livia; the Copenhagen
portrait often identified as the aged Livia- has the crisper waves and the small curls at the
sides that seem to herald the Claudianstyle. The elements which most sharply distinguish our
portrait from those of the Empress are the broad-bridged,classically straight nose and the soft
mouth with its parted lips. In Livia's portraits the aquiline nose and the determined mouth
reveal the ambitious matron who knew how to wield her beauty as a weapon. In fashioning our
head the artist seems to have accepted the ideal of beauty represented by the court portraits
and applied it to a subject of gentler character.

1 Inv. S 1627. Pres. L. 0.24 m. Hesperia, XXII, 1953, p. 55, pl. 20c. The scale is life-size. The hand is broken
off above
the wrist; the thumb and much of the rim of the phiale are missing. The marble is Pentelic, similar in quality to that of the
head. The surface is fresh and unweathered but blackened by fire, especially on the back of the hand. The careful, precise
carving is very similar to that of the head; compare especially the division of the fingers on the hand with the parting of the
lips on the head. Similar also is the smooth surface finish which retains an occasional touch of the rasp.
2 B.M.C., Empire, I, pl. 35, 9 (A.D. 41) is perhaps the closest, since it shows the hair twisted behind the ears.
3 Maiuri, Bollettinod'arte,1930-31, pp. 11ff., figs. 5-7; Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Mitt. d. Inst., III, 1950, pl. 14,1 (front view);
Paribeni, pl. 115 (side view).
4 Poulsen, Greekand Roman Portraits in English CountryHouses, figs. 33-34 (in Tunis, Bardo Museum).
5 Delbriick, Antike Portrats,pl. 34; A.B. 6-7; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 209; Billedtavler,pl. 50, no. 614.
24 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

12. FRAGMENTARYPORTRAIT
OFAYOUNGWOMAN,ANTONIA
MINOR(?), JULIO-CLAUDIANPERIOD
Inv. S 220.FoundMay17, 1932in a marbledumpsouthof the Agorasquare. Plate 8.
Pentelicmarble.Pres. H. 0.21 m., Pres. W. 0.215 m., Pres. D. 0.145 m.
Upperfrontpartofheadonlypreserved.Thewholesurfaceseverelylbattered.
Ofthe faceonlythe innerand
outercornersof eyessurvive.Theoutlinesof thehaircanbe madeout. Thefrontpartsof the earspreserved.
The head is probably from a draped statue. On a line with the backs of the ears the carved
surface of the hair stops and is replaced by a rough joint surface similar to that on the side of
the head No. 33 below. It is not clear whether the much worn present back surface of the
fragment is break surface or roughly picked, but here, as there, it seems most likely that the
head was covered with a mantle or veil and the face and neck carved separately and inset. In
the present portrait, however, the head covering was symmetrically placed. The hair is parted
in the center and is combed back in wide waves, leaving the ears uncovered. Ten little ringlets
outline the forehead in front, and a semicircularloop of hair emerges from under the waves in
front of each ear. The ears are far apart, sloping outward at the tops.
The coiffure, the shape of the forehead and the slope of the ears are all duplicated exactly in
a charminghead of a young woman in Berlin (P1.44, a),' of which ours must have been a replica.
The only differenceis that the Berlin lady is bareheaded,so that we see the rest of the coiffure.
The hair is twisted into a small knot on the back of the neck. The head in Berlin is said to have
come from a Greek island. A portrait in Malta, tentatively identified as Antonia Minor, the
wife of Nero Drusus, shows a lady with exactly the same coiffure and with the same facial
proportions, though the work lacks the delicacy of the Berlin portrait, and the face appears
heavier and consequently less youthful.2 The shape of the head, very wide at the top and
tapering to a small chin, is that characteristic of the Julio-Claudianfamily. The coiffure with
the center part and wide crimped waves and with the hair twisted into a small knot low in the
back is intermediate between that shown in a portrait labelled Salus Augusta on a coin of the
time of Tiberius, generally taken as a portrait of Livia,3 and the coiffures of Antonia in post-
humous coin-portraitsissued under Claudius,4where the back hair hangs down in the pendant
knot that is common in Claudianfemale portraits. One of the Antonia coins, minted in Alex-
andria,5 shows the single row of small curls framing the forehead. Judging from comparison
with the coins alone, the lady of the Berlin and Malta portraits resembles Antonia more than
any other ladies of the imperial household, though the facial type differs somewhat from that
of the famous statue in the Louvre commonly identified as Antonia, the nose being not so long
as in the Louvre portrait, and the whole face consequently more compact. If the Berlin portrait
represents Antonia, it is by all odds the loveliest, though it can scarcely be the most accurate,
representation of this great lady that has come down to us. The discovery of a replica in Athens
strengthens the case for the identification.6
1 Bliimel,
R6mischeBildnisse, R 23, p. 11, pl. 16. Bltimel dates the head in the first decades of our era, but does not raise
the question of the identification.
2
Mostra Augustea della Romanitd, Catalogo,2nd Edition, Rome, pl. 23; 4th Edition, IX, 38 (not illustrated).
3 B.M.C.,
Empire, I, pl. 24, 2. A recent identification of this coin as Antonia (see above, No. 10, note 1) threatens further
to confuse the picture of the iconography of these imperial ladies. All numismatic considerations aside, the face on this coin
seems certainly more like that on the other Livia coins than that on the coins of Antonia issued under Claudius.
4 Bernoulli, R.I., II1, pl. 33, 9-12. 5 Ibid.,
6 We know that a cult of Antonia as well as one pl. 33, 12.
of her husband Drusus was established in Athens, which was apparently
the only city to render her this honor (Graindor, Athknessous Auguste, pp. 157f.). The analysis by Hanson and Johnson
(A.J.A., L, 1946, pp. 393f.) of portrait inscriptions of Antonia mentions a portrait at Mytilene, set up some time after the death
of Drusus in 9 B.C., and one near Troy, set up in the reign of Tiberius. The portrait inscriptions listed range in date from
12 B.C., when Antonia was about twenty-four years old, to after her death at the age of seventy-two. Later portraits seem
to have shown her with her youthful face, but with the coiffure brought up to date (West, I, p. 134).
 CATALOGUE 25

13. PORTRAITOF A WOMAN (FROMA RELIEF), JULIO-CLAUDIANPERIOD Plate10.

Inv. S 805. Broughtin fromoutside the excavations,January1937.
Pentelic marble.H. 0.188 m., D. of relief,0.10 m., H. chin to crown0.18 m.
Headbrokenofffromneckjust belowchin.Noneof background butthelineofjunctionof relief
preserved,
withbackground visibleallaround.Nosebrokenoff;chin,mouth,andlowerpartof rightcheekchippedaway.
Chipsalsoin righteyebrow,edgeof hairin frontandedgeof rightear.
The head, about two-thirds life-size, is broken from a high relief. It faces left in three-quarters
view, but the face is completely carved out in the round except for the upper part of the left
side. Both eyes and eyebrows are complete and undistorted.
The hair is parted in the center and drawn back in narrow, crinkly waves covering the ear.
Behind the ear the hair is twisted down the back of the neck and probably ended in a pendant
knot which is now broken off. The eyebrows are not plastically indicated nor are the eyes
engraved. The eyeballs project in an almost archaic manner. The face is carefully modelled,
with prominent cheekbones and the cheeks hollowed below them. The chin is small but the jaw
wide. All the flesh is carefully smoothed, in contrast to the hair, which is left somewhat rough.
The coiffure of this head, with the tight waves in front and the pendant knot behind, places
it around the time of Tiberius. The crisp carving of the waved strands of the front hair which
gives them the look of overlapping ribbons also appears in a portrait of Livia in Copenhagen.'
Portraying a woman of perhaps early middle age, with attractively individual features, this
little head has none of the coldly generalized quality of many more pretentious works of its
period. Besides giving life and character to his subject, the sculptor has handled the marble
with a warmth and ease that is reminiscent of Attic work of a much earlierday.
1
Delbriick, Antike Portrats,pl. 34; A.B. 6-7; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 209; Billedtavler,pl. 50, no. 614. A similar treatment
of the hair is visible on the right-hand figure of a tomb-relief of the period of Tiberius in Ince Blundell Hall, Poulsen, Greek
and Roman Portraits in English CountryHouses, no. 40, p. 60.

14. PORTRAITBUST OF A YOUNG MAN, EARLY FLAVIAN PERIOD Plate 11.

Inv. S 1319. Found in the burnt debris,resultingfrom the Heruliansack of A.D. 267, of a large Roman
house on the northeastslope of the Hill of the Nymphs (C 16). In the same room was found the bust of an
elderlyman, below, No. 19.
Pentelic marble.H. includingtenon 0.43 m., W. of bust 0.27 m., H. chin to crown0.20 m.
Backof headsplitofffromthe crowndown.Thebreakapparently followedthehairlinealongbackof neck.
Nosebrokenoff;mouth,chin,eyebrowsandearsbattered.Frontof faceandtop of headreducedto a granular
surfaceandfacegrayedby fire.Surfaceunderchinandon neckandbust betterpreserved.Breaksurfaces
worn.
Publishedby H. A. Thompson,Hesperia,XVIII, 1949, p. 220, pl. 43, 1; A.J.A., LII, 1948,pl. 55c.

The bust, slightly under life-size, has a roughly cut tenon below, presumably for setting into
a base. The position of this tenon, at the back instead of the front edge of the bust, is unusual,
and it is difficult to imagine what the original form of the base was meant to be. When found,
the bust was resting on a makeshift base, the lower part of an unfinishedsupport for a table or
basin. The fact that the breaks on the head are worn and that the missing pieces were not found
even though the bust was in a sealed deposit suggests that the breakage had occurred long
before the year 267. The break at the top bisects an odd, irregularlydrilledhole about 0.015 m.
in diameter, which penetrates down from the top to a depth of about 0.08 m. A bit of an iron
26 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

pinremainsin the bottomof the hole.Thepurposeof thisironpinis not clear.It cannothave

been meant to repair the break, of which it seems, if anything, rather to have been the cause.
The subject is a very young man with short, curly hair and with the first fuzzy beard on his
cheeks. Both hair and beard have been impressionistically rendered with the chisel and point,
giving the effect of the softness of hair without any linear following of the strands. The fuzzily
impressionistic effect has, of course, been somewhat heightened by the disintegration of the
surface. The face seems influenced by the classical ephebe type of the fourth century B.C. The
lower part of the forehead bulges and the bridge of the nose was heavy and straight, with no
indentation in profile. The eyes are carved in a manner reminiscent of work in bronze, with
sharply defined lids, the lower lid showing a slight flange. This occurs in other portraits of the
first and early second centuries after Christ.' An element of portraiture is probably to be seen
in the fullness of the face, which somewhat exceeds the classical pattern. The right ear appears
thick, as though it had suffered the effects of boxing or the pankration, but the present muti-
lated state of both ears makes it difficult to be sure.2 The surface of the face was smoothed, but
marks of the rasp remain on the neck and bust and around the ears.
The form of the bust would fit a date in the time of Nero or soon after. This pleasant portrait
of a cheerful-looking young man is not strongly individualized; probably the subject didnot
want it to be. Like the college freshman of today, he is at an age when individuality is not so
highly prized as is conformity to the accepted pattern.

1 Cf. No. 17 below. This feature is perhaps commonest in Hadrianic work, but it occurs even in the Julio-Claudianperiod,
e.g. the head of a young woman (perhaps Antonia) in Berlin (P1. 44, a).
2 Pancratiast's ears seem to have been considered a respectable mark of gentlemanly interest in athletics, not only a sign
of the professional athlete. They occur not only on portraits of ephebes and kosmetai (Graindor, Cosm1tes, no. 4, p. 304,
fig. 11 and no. 21, p. 353, pl. 21) but even on the portrait of Moiragenes (No. 25 below), a mature Athenian official without
even an educational connection with athletics. No doubt the thickened ear was accorded the same respect as is shown today
for "an old foot-ball injury."

15. PORTRAIT HEAD OF A MAN (FROM A RELIEF), FLAVIAN PERIOD Plate 11.
Inv. S 680.FoundMarch19, 1986in looseearthof the fourthcenturyafterChristor later,in frontof the
northendof the Stoaof Attalos(P 8).
Pentelicmarble.H. of fragment0.15m.
Headbrokenofffromneckjustbelowthe chin.Noneof background orof lineof intersection
of background
withreliefpreserved.
Breakrunsoutsideoutercornerof righteyeanddownthroughrightcheek.Chinchipped
away;nosebrokenoff;lipsmostlybrokenaway.Earbrokenoff;eyebrowsandhairlinebattered.
The head is in three-quartersfront view, facing to the properright; the relief is low enough to
requirea distortion of the face when seen from in front. The subject is clean-shaven and wears
his hair cut moderately short, with a straight horizontal line across the forehead and with
pointed locks in front of the ears. The hair is carved with the chisel in small flame-shapedlocks.
The face is strongly modelled, with heavily marked furrows and salient eyebrows and eyelids.
It represents a middle-aged man with a serious expression. The look of anxiety which the head
has in its present state may be partly caused by the damage it has suffered. The hair style of the
piece could be either Julio-Claudianor Flavian, but the modelling of the face and especially the
treatment of the eyes favor a Flavian date.'
1 Cf. Nos. 18 and 19 below.
 CATALOGUE 27
16. FRAGMENTARY PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN, FLAVIAN PERIOD Plate 11.
Inv. S 359. Found May 9, 1933 in a moderncellar wall near the southwest cornerof the ancient Agora
square(J 11).
Pentelicmarble.Pres. H. 0.28 m., Pres. W. 0.205m., H. chin to crown(not includingthe erectionof hair in
front)0.24m.
Headbrokenofffromneckjust underchin.Thewholebackof headandneckbrokenoff,the breakrunning
throughboth ears.Mostof the surfaceof the frontmassof hairbrokenoff;the facebatteredbeyondrec-
ognition.
The rough-picked finish of the concave hair surface behind the high front mass of curls
suggests that the head may be broken from a relief.' The face was round, nay moon-shaped.
The eyes and the area around them seem to have been quite flatly modelled. The surface that
is preserved on the forehead and under the chin shows that the flesh was carefully smoothed,
probably polished. Parts of two rows of snail-shell curls are still visible, a drill-holein the center
of each. They extend down in front of the ears on each side. The lady seems to be wearing the
typical hairdress of the time of Domitian. Curlsof similar size and regularity and with the same
monotonous drilled centers appear on a portrait in the Capitoline called Domitia.2 Since the
back part of our head is missing, however, we cannot date it precisely. The sponge-like curl-
dressing of the front hair continued in use through the Trajanic period, and only the styling of
the back hair permits a distinction.3
1 A Flavian female portrait from Chersonesosin Crete (Marinatos,Arch. Anz., 1935, col. 256, figs. 7-8) shows, however,
an unfinished back although it is carved in the round.
2 Hekler, Bildniskunst,
pl. 239b; Bernoulli, R.I., II, pl. 20, p. 64.
3 Poulsen, Greekand Roman Portraits in
English CountryHouses, no. 53, pp. 71 f., and figs. 43-44.

17. PORTRAIT OF A PRIEST (?), FLAVIAN PERIOD Plate 12.

Inv. S 347. Found April 21, 1933 in a water deposit inside the mill room of the fifth century mill in the
southeastcornerof the Agora(Q 13).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.585 m., W. 0.295 m., H. chin to crown(withoutwreath)ca. 0.28 m.
Noseandchinbrokenoff.Righteyebrowandedgesof earschipped.A smallchipgonefrombackof head.
Publishedby T. L. Shear, Hesperia,IV, 1935, pp. 411-413, figs. 35-36; A.J.A., XXXVII, 1933, p. 309,
fig. 17.
The portrait is distinctly over life-size. The heavy columnarneck ends at the base in a rough-
picked tenon (a frustum of a cone in shape) for insertion in a draped torso. On the head is a
large wreath of big laurelleaves fastened to a ribbon which is tied in back, with the ends hanging
down on the back of the neck. The top surface of the wreath and the whole back part of it are
only roughly carved with the chisel, and the back of the neck is left in a similar state. The hair
above the wreath is flatly carved in rows of curved locks radiating from the crown. Below the
wreathis a long fringe of lunate locks, covering about half of the foreheadin front but leaving the
ears bare. The ends of the locks curl in opposite directions away from a parting above the outer
corner of the right eye. The back hair is brushedforwardin S-curves from the nape of the neck.
Drill channels divide the locks over the forehead.
The face is a heavy oval carved with a minimum of modelling. The forehead is marked with
an incised horizontal wrinkle just below the hair and two little frown-wrinklesbetween the
eyebrows. The brows project little beyond the enormousflat eyes. The eyeballs curve inward at
the inner corners, a feature common in first and early second century portraits. The upper lids
 28 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
are rather heavy; the lower lids are flanged. The lower part of the face was certainly never
distinguished, and the damage it has sufferedleaves little worth commenting on. The closing of
the mouth is a straight line. There is just enough modelling in the long, thick neck to indicate a
slight turn of the head toward the right. The head seems not to be unfinished, for the marks of
the rasp on the flesh surfaces have already been partially smoothed away, probably as much as
was thought necessary in a work of this type.'
This large-scale portrait, done in rather poor marble and poorly finished, was evidently
intended for outdoor display. The head was first published as a portrait of Claudius.2Later,
Meriwether Stuart, in a dissertation on the portraits of Claudius,listed the Agora portrait as
wrongly identified.3There is, in fact, no particularresemblanceto Claudiusin the features, and
the style seems later than the time of Claudius.The hair style is one which begins in the time of
Nero,4but in so far as one canjudge the sculpturalstyle of the head it seemslater still. Theuse of the
drill to separate the locks over the forehead is better paralleled in works near the end of the
first century.5 The carving of the eyes is not unlike that in a portrait of Trajan in the Piraeus
Museum.6Our portrait, for all its coldly generalized quality, has not the hard smoothness of
surface appropriate to the Trajanic or Hadrianic periods. Some portraits of Nerva show a
similar arrangementof the front locks (though higher on the forehead) and the general quality
of the surface may be matched in portraits of Nerva and in other works of his time.7
If, as seems to be the case, this portrait cannot be identified with any emperor who reigned
duringthe period which is stylistically possible for it, we must conclude that it is not an imperial
portrait, in spite of the fact that it is over life-size and wears a laurel wreath. The wreath
implies that the subject was a priest;8the size that he was a person of considerableimportance.9
The coldly generalized style, however, is commoner in portraits of Roman rulers than in those
of local worthies.
1
The sculptor's measuring-points mentioned in Hesperia, IV, 1935, p. 411 are in fact non-existent.
2 See above.
3 M. Stuart, The Portraiture Claudius,
of Preliminary Studies, p. 82. Stuart has kindly elaborated in a letter to me his
reasons for rejecting the identification.They are summed up in his words: "There simply is not the faintest trace of Claudius
in the head."
4 Cf. the portrait in the Terme, Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 183. That the style actually developed in the time of Nero may
be seen from the coins (B.M.C., Empire, I, pls. 38-39). If L'Orangeis right in interpreting the final Neronian coiffure (in which
the forehead hair stands up like the crest of a wave about to break and the parting over the right eye is eliminated in favor
of a continuous arch of parallel crescents) as a sign of apotheosis, of identification with the sun-god (From the Collectionsof
the Ny-CarlsbergGlyptothek,III, 1942, pp. 247ff.), then it is clear that the earlier coiffure, that of the Terme portrait, would
have been the only one to be perpetuated through imitation by others.
5 E.g. the portraits of Nerva, G6tze, Mitt. d. Inst., I, 1948, pl. 48, A and B. The first, a head on the Cancelleria relief, is a
portrait of Domitian that has been reworked into a portrait of Nerva.
6 W. H. Gross, Bildnisse Traians,
pl. 27b.
7 See above, note 5. Above the wreath the hair of our Agora head differs from that of Domitian and Nerva in
being cut
short in overlapping locks instead of consisting of continuous long wavy strands brushed forward from the back of the head.
In this respect our head follows earlier styles.
8 The
significance of wreaths of different types is a subject that has not been sufficiently investigated. It seems established,
however, that the wearing of a wreath was primarily religious in meaning and that the Roman emperors wore the wreath
by virtue of their priesthood (Pauly-Wissowa, R.E., s.v. Corona).
9 Overlife-size in a
portrait does not necessarily imply that the subject is of the imperial family (see below, No. 28, note 12),
but portraits of ordinary citizens, such as the kosmetai, were life-sized or under.

18. PORTRAITOF A MAN, LATE FLAVIAN OR EARLY TRAJANICPERIOD Plate 13.

Inv. 8 1182.Found June 16, 1939in a late Romandeposit at the northeastfoot of the Areopagus(R 22).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.295m., W. 0.175 m., H. chin to crown0.25 m.
Headbrokenoffat the neckin a planethat slantsupfrombaseof throatto hairlinein back.Noseandears
brokenoff. Chipsmissingfromtop of foreheadand left side of chin.
 CATALOGUE 29
A middle-aged man is represented, clean-shaven and with a receding hair line. The hair is
very short, not rendered plastically but engraved in the smoothed surface of the head with
little curved lines paired together to suggest pointed locks. The head is very long and narrow in
profile as well as in front view. The modelling is realistic in a thoroughly plastic way. Between
the deep wrinklesin the forehead the flesh is carefully rounded. A raised vein wriggles down the
right side of the forehead. The eyebrows project and overhang the eyes; their salience is
emphasizedby the marked concavity of the temples. The under sides of the eyebrows near their
outer ends are cut as facets intersecting the plane of the foreheadin a sharp arris; at the inner
ends the irregular overhang of flesh and hair is more realistically shown. Curved incisions
represent the hairs. The eyes are deep-set, and a drill-channelseparates the heavy upper lids
from the overhangingbrows. Both lids are thick and wide; the eyes themselves are small, with
eyeballs markedly convex. Below the left eye a definite pouch is shown, but below the right eye
the transition from lid to cheek is smoothly concave. There is no clearly apparent reason for
this asymmetry, unless it be the very slight turn of the head toward the right. In the modelling
of the lower part of the face a very simple pattern gives a strongly realistic effect. Cheekbones
and chin form prominencesover which the flesh is taut. A band of heavy flesh, defined on the
outside by modelled grooves that continue down from the inner corners of the eyes and pass
under the chin and on the inside by deep folds starting from beside the nose, surrounds the
area of the mouth and chin. Behind this chin-strap the flesh of cheeks and jowls sags from in
front of the ears, where small pulled wrinkles are visible. The short mouth with lips slightly
parted is deeply inset at the corners. The neck is carefully modelled to show folds, tendons and
a prominent Adam's apple.
This plastic realism settling into a clear simple pattern belongs to the very late Flavian period
or to the time of Trajan. Our head is markedly similar in type to the following portrait,' of
which the bust form is late Flavian or early Trajanic,2but the surface is not of the same hard,
smooth, highly polished kind. The portrait of a man from the tomb monument of the Haterii3
may be compared with ours in several respects: the furrows in the forehead, the prominent
veins at the temples, the heavy-lidded, deep-set eyes with undercut eyebrows and the mouth
with its slightly parted lips and deep corners. A fragment of a colossal portrait of Nerva in the
Forum of Trajan, of which only the lower part of the face survives, is very similar to our head
in the proportions and in the treatment of the mouth and the area around it.4 It is amusing to
note that the differencesin facial type between the present Agora portrait and the one im-
mediately following correspond to the differences between Nerva and Trajan. The one has
Nerva's long, narrow face with small chin and his short, full mouth with the corners pulled in.
In the other the broader jaw and chin and the wide mouth with thin lips clamped together
recall Trajan'sportraits. It is hard to know to what extent such resemblancesbetween portraits
of emperorsand those of private persons are intentional and to what extent they result from an
unconscious influence on the sculptor of the tastes of the times. In any case, they occur often
enough to be of interest, a help in the dating of portraits and a hindranceto their identification.5
It is interesting, on the other hand, to note the features which our portrait has in common
with works of the mid first century B.C., another period of "Roman realism." The very short
hair engraved into a smoothed head surface, the deep wrinkles, the prominent veins and even
the small wrinkles in front of the ears are all to be found in portraits of the earlier period.6 In
spite of a deep basic differencebetween the two styles, the resemblancesin detail seem almost
too many to be explained by an unconscious resurgenceof underlying traits of Roman art that
80 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
had been repressedby the classicism of the early imperial age. There must have been a revival
of vogue not only for the realism of the earlier age but also for certain of the specific tricks by
which that effect of realism was obtained. To judge from Athenian portraits such as ours, the
Greek artists in this period were not deterred by any native predisposition to classicism from
adopting the mode of the times.
Though it is difficult to pin an exact date on our present portrait, the likelihood is that it was
made early in the reign of Trajan if not during Nerva's reign. The relatively soft modelling and
surface finish of the face (in contrast to the hard polish of the following portrait) have a parallel
in the portrait of the kosmetes Heliodoros, set up in the archonship of Fulvius Metrodoros,
some time between A.D. 100 and 110/1.
1
Below, No. 19.
2 Cf. Hekler, Jahreshefte,XXI-XXII, 1922-24, p. 188, type III.
3 Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 225 a; A.B. 747. Arndt's dating of the male portrait to the late Trajanic or even Hadrianic period
on the evidence of the bust-form is difficult to accept. The style of the face shows much more affinity with portraits of Nerva
than with those of Trajan. The relatively hard treatment of the surface might bring the date down to the early Trajanic
period, but not later.
4 Gatze, Mitt. d. Inst., I, 1948, pl. 56, G.
5 Cf. above, No. 7 and below, No. 37.
8 Cf. above, No. 3 (veins and wrinkles); Schweitzer, fig. 101 (wrinkles and short hair); A.B. 813 (Athens National Museum
no. 331; short hair engraved in a smooth head surface).
7 Graindor, Cosm~tes,no. 2, pp. 292ff., fig. 10. G., II2, 2021. See below, No. 19, note 6.
1.

19. PORTRAITBUST OF A MAN, PERIOD OF TRAJAN (A.D. 98-117) Plate 14.

Inv. 8 1299.FoundAugust8, 1947on the floorof a Romanhouseon the northeastslopeof the Hill of the
Nymphs(C16),surrounded by burntmaterialresultingfromtheHeruliansackof A.D.267,in the sameroom
in whichwasfoundthe bustof a youngman,No. 14 above.
islandmarble.H. 0.475 m., W. of bust 0.343 m., H. chin to crown0.25 m.
Coarse-grained
Nosebrokenoff.Basemissing.Otherwise
complete.
Hesperia,XVII,1948,p. 178,pl. 56.
Publishedby H. A. Thompson,
The bust is of trapezoidal shape, relatively wide at the bottom. The outside contours of the
shoulders are not included. The drapery consists of a chiton over which is worn a himation that
covers the left half of the breast and passes behind the neck to slope down along the front edge
of the right shoulder. The surface of the drapery is rasped to suggest the matt finish and soft
texture of the cloth, though the folds tend to be stiff and rectilinear. Little engraved lines
reminiscent of the press-folds dear to Hellenistic sculptors cross the folds here and there.
The subject is an elderly man, bald on top. The short-clipped hair on the sides and back of
the head is rendered by little curved incisions (often paired to suggest pointed locks) into a
surface which, like the drapery, is'rasped for contrast with the highly polished flesh. The face is
made up of the same compositional elements as that of the preceding portrait, but the adoption
of a hard, continuous surface gives a quite different effect. In the forehead a single very shallow
modelled groove takes the place of the three deep furrowsof the precedingportrait. The vertical
wrinkles from the bridge of the nose become indentations so slight that, though they can be felt
with the fingers, they are scarcely visible in ordinary light. The same is true of a slight ridge
that crosses the concave space of the temples on each side, doubtless meant to represent the
vein. The eyebrows have sharp arrises and flat facets below them all the way along. The hairs
are engraved. The eyes are set far back so that they are heavily overshadowed. The lids are
thick, again with sharp arrises. The upper lids overlap the lower at the outer corners, con-
 CATALOGUE 31

tinuing downward to meet the groove that defines the lower edge of the eye socket. The lines
of the lower part of the face are essentially the same as in the precedingportrait except that the
mouth is now clamped shut and the groove separating the chin from the lower lip has become
a definite line forming a low gable.' At the right end of this groove is a drill-holewhere evidently
the sculptor drilled a little too deep in removing the marble in the earlier stages of the work.
The outer edges of the lips are barely distinguishable; all the emphasis is on the line of closing.2
In the new hard treatment of the surface, grooves and folds tend to become offsets or inter-
sections of planes. Protuberances are smoothly rounded; any swelling of the flesh is taut and
hard. The ears, completely preserved in the present portrait, are round and thick. The overall
effect is that of work in some stone harder than marble. One is reminded of Egyptian portraits
in hard, colored stone.
The form of the bust could be late Flavian or early Trajanic,3but the style belongs wholly to
the time of Trajan. For the surface a good parallel exists in the colossal portrait head of Trajan
found in the theater at Ostia, which is thought to date actually from the very beginning of
Hadrian's reign.4The style of the face and the spirit of the portrait as a whole are close to those
of a bust in Naples, which portrays an elderly Roman who wears his hair in the characteristic
Trajanic mode.5 The eyes of the Naples portrait are of the same heavy-lidded type as those of
our portrait, with the upper lids overlappingthe lower at the outer corners.The arrangementof
the drapery is also similar, though the Naples bust is slightly more developed than ours in its
outline.
In view of the above parallels a date in the latter part of Trajan's reign seems most probable
for our bust, in spite of the fact that the bust form could be a bit earlier. The portrait of the
kosmetes Heliodoros, dated on epigraphicalgrounds between ca. 100 and 110/1,6 seems closer
to the style of the Flavian period, and so should be earlier than the Agora bust, which exem-
plifies the fully developed Trajanic style. The notable achievement of the Trajanic age in
portraitureis the production of an effect of strong realism through rigidly controlled composi-
tional and technical means. The masterly technique of the Agora bust and its convincing
characterization of its subject show that the Athenian portraitists of this period were not far
behind their Roman contemporariesin ability.
1 This line becomes even more marked in the portrait of Moiragenes, below, No. 25, which must belong to the time of
Hadrian.
2 This is true of a number of
Trajanic portraits, e. g. Hekler, Bildniskunst, pls. 233, 234 b, 240 b.
3 Cf. Thompson, Hesperia, XVII, 1948, p. 178; Hekler, Jahreshefte,XXI-XXII, 1922-24, p. 188, type III.
4 W. H. Gross, Bildnisse Traians, no. 74, pls. 33-35; Paribeni, pl. 206. Gross, op. cit., p. 114, suggests that, since the
arrangement of the hair in the Ostia portrait recurs only in the Hadrianic Mesopotamia relief on the arch at Beneventum,
the type must be that of the Divus Traianus, a type which would presumably have been created immediately after Trajan's
consecration.
5 Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 233; A.B. 741.
6 Graindor,Cosm&tes,no. 2, pp. 292ff., fig. 10; I.G., II, 2021. Graindor'sterminuspost quemof 98/99, based on the assump-
tion that this inscription must be later than I.G., 112, 2017 (archonship of Pantainos), has been demolished by Notopoulos's
dating of Pantainos to 115/6 (Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, p. 26), but the mention of the paidotribesDemetrios in the present
inscription prevents a date much before 100, since Demetrios was still active in 126/7 (I.G., II2, 3733).

20. SMALL PORTRAIT HEAD OF A WOMAN, PERIOD OF TRAJAN Plate 15.

and
Inv. S 1268.Foundin a verylate Romandepositat the bottomof the valleybetweenthe Areopagus
the Hillof the Nymphs,westof the northwestspurof the Areopagus
(D 17).
Islandmarble.H. 0.116 m., H. chin to crown0.098 m.
on left thanon right.Chipsbrokenoff
Headbrokenoffat neckin a slantingbreak.Moreof neckpreserved
32 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
the projectingedgesof the hairdress
in backandone fromcenterof roll overforehead.Nose,lips, chinand
righteye andeyebrowbattered.A scaronleft cheek.Earsbattered.
Publishedby H. A. Thompson, Hesperia,XVII, 1948,p. 178,pl. 55.
The broad nose, the high cheekbones and the projecting, seemingly thick lips suggest that the
subject may be a negress. Her hair is dressedin one of the elaborate coiffuresworn by ladies of
the time of Trajan.The front hair is rolled into a kind of puff which frames the face and its ends
are twisted into a rope-like strand which runs upward behind the puff to the center front from
each side. Because of the break at the top it is not clear what happened in the center. A drilled
groove 0.018 m. long in the center just behind the front puff may possibly have served for the
attachment of some ornament or elaboration of the hair to serve as akroterion to the gable of
the forehead. The rest of the hair is drawn straight back in a great number of tiny braids, and
all these braids are wound around in some complicated way to form a great disk-like coil on the
back of the head. All the details of this coiffure are lovingly rendered,with equal attentiveness
on all sides.
The face is polished, smoothly and delicately modelled. The eyebrows at their outer ends
project strongly from the plane of the forehead. The eyes are set wide apart and are rather
protruding. The lids are crisply carved, the upper overlapping the lower at the outer corner.
The cheekbones, though prominent, are smoothly rounded; below them the face narrows to a
long chin. Under the chin the flesh rounds plumply and the curved planes of the face and neck
intersect in a clean sharp line.
Both in style and in technique this little head shows its affinity with the preceding portrait,
and it is not impossiblethat the two come from the same workshop. Onemaycompare the plastic
prominencegiven to the eyebrows and eyelids, the preferencefor smoothly convex surfaces, the
use of island marble, and the hard polish imparted to it in the flesh parts. The coiffure would
suit a date in the late Trajanic period, since it represents a simplification of the court style of
the day.' Our lady has dispensed with the elaborate tiara-like erections of curls or braided hair
worn by the ladies of the court and in their place has expanded the roll that borders the face in
these more pretentious coiffures.The braiding of the strands that go back from the front to the
coil on the back of the head is perhaps a shade old-fashioned. Elsewhere it occurs in company
with the Trajanic version of the Flavian sponge-like curl-dressing,2whereas in the portraits of
Matidia and Marcianathese strands are merely twisted.
1 Cf. the portraits of Marciana and Matidia, Wegner, Arch. Anz., 1938, cols. 276ff., figs. 1, 3, 7-13.
2 Cf. the portrait of a woman in Lansdowne House, Poulsen, Greekand Roman Portraits in English Country Houses, no.
53, p. 71, and one in the Berlin Museum, Bliimel, Rimische Bildnisse, R 37, pl. 27. Portraits of Plotina keep the braids but
generally dispense with the coil in back. A bust in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, Richter, Roman Portraits, no.
63, tentatively identified as Plotina and certainly of Trajanic date, has, however, a medium-sized coil high in back.

21. HEAD OF A YOUNG MAN (FROMA GRAVE RELIEF), PERIOD OF TRAJAN(?) Plate 16.
Inv. S 880. Found April 10, 1937 in a late Byzantine deposit north of the Templeof Ares (K 7).
Pentelic marble. H. 0.115 m., W. 0.08 m., D. of relief ca. 0.06 m., H. chin to crown 0.095 m.
Headbrokenoff at baseof neck.Background brokenawayaroundheadleavingonlya bit of background
planevisibleonrightsideofneck.Theoriginalroughlypickedbacksurfaceof slabvisibleonbackoffragment;
the slab only 0.03 m. thick at this point. Mostof nose chippedoff; lowerlip and chin somewhatdamaged.
The head faces straight out, emerging from the backgroundjust a little way behind the ears.
The sides of the head and neck intersect the background plane perpendicularly instead of
 CATALOGUE 883
curving in behind. This makes the neck look unusually thick. The top of the head is wide and
domed, the face oval, tapering to a small pointed chin. The hairline over the forehead is a
smooth oval ending in a point in front of each ear. The hair is representedas all combed forward
from the crown of the head, the locks being indicated by rows of parallel strokes. The ears are
enormous,flaringoutward as they so often do in front-facingheads on grave reliefs of the Roman
period.
The modelling of the face, though sketchy, is careful and competent. Details like the con-
cavity of the forehead above the eyebrow ridges, the hollows below the eyes and the area of
soft flesh around the mouth are duly noted. The rasp has been used to round and soften the
contours, and in places the marks of the rasp in turn have been partially smoothed away.
The hair combed forward and cut in a smooth arch across the forehead suggests a date early
in the second century after Christ. Neither the portrait nor the person it represents is in any
way distinguished, but it again illustrates the power of the ordinary Athenian sculptor working
in marble to produce an effect of warmth and life even with the most modest means.

22. PORTRAITOF A WOMAN (FROMA GRAVE RELIEF), PERIOD OF TRAJAN (?) Plate16.
Inv. S 584.FoundMay21, 1935in a moderndepositonthe eastsideof the Agora(P 13).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.15m.
Headbrokenofffrombodyat neckandfrombackground all around.Nosebrokenoff.

The head is meant to be seen in three-quartersfront view, facing left. The thick hair is parted
in the center and drawn back in soft waves leaving the ears uncovered. A veil or mantle covers
the top and back of the head, passing behind the ears. The face is a full oval, with almond eyes
and a soft, small mouth. The heavy hair is carved with the chisel into broad strands. The ear is
only a small shell without interior detail. The surface of the face has been dressed down with the
rasp on the side that is meant to be seen; on the side that is away from the spectator the irregu-
larities left by the chisel remain.
The coiffure affords no very good evidence for the dating. This manner of wearing the front
hair might be found at almost any time during the first century after Christ or in the early part
of the second. The technique of the piece, however, is so close to that of the preceding that a
similar date seems likely. Points to be comparedare the quality of the rasp-dressedsurface, the
soft modelling of the mouth, and, above all, the shape of the eyes, which narrow to a very fine
point at the outer corners.
Like the preceding, this head has no qualities of distinction that merit special comment. A
certain simple charm inherent in the piece as a whole speaks for itself.

23. PORTRAITOF A MAN, PERIOD OF HADRIAN (A.D. 117-138) Plate 12.

Inv. S 837. Found March 8, 1937 in the filling of the "Valerian Wall" under the modern street that runs
around the north side of the Acropolis (T 28).
Coarse-grainedisland marble. H. 0.475 m., W. 0.215 m., H. chin to crown 0.27 m.
Whole front of face split off from top of forehead down to depression between lower lip and chin. Break
runs throughouter cornerof right eye, and tip of right eyebrowis preserved.None of eye or eyebrowpre-
servedon left side. Surfacein very good conditionotherwise.
3
84 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
The head is made with a rough-pickedtenon, a frustum of a cone in shape, for insertion into
a draped statue. The man portrayed has short curly hair that clings very close to his head,
receding a little at the temples, and a somewhat longer curly beard. The surface of the hair is
raised hardly at all above the surface of the skin. Rather the locks are engraved into this surface
with the meticulous care of work in bronze. The beard is crisply carved in very neat, short curls,
with linear detailing on the surface of the locks, which are renderedin relief and separated from
one another by means of the drill. The skin surface is smoothly rounded everywhere and has a
high polish. There seem to have been no wrinkles. The eyebrows were engravedwith fine strokes
running parallel to the curve of the eyebrow arch. The ears are small and carefully modelled,
smooth and round and fleshy. The plump neck has no modelling except for the right side, where
a slight turn of the head presses the flesh into two rolls.
This polished gentleman, who despite his loss of face has maintained the elegance of his
coiffure, belonged probably to the time of Hadrian. The cut of the beard is similar to that
shown in the portrait of the kosmetes Onasos, son of Trophimos,who served in the archonship
of ClaudiusLysiades, sometime in the last decade of Hadrian's reign,' while the carving of the
individual locks of the beard is best paralleled in a portrait in Berlin whose hair style imitates
that of Hadrian himself."The marble used, and the hard polish given to the flesh parts recall the
bust of an elderly man, No. 19 above, which seems to belong to the later Trajanic period. The
carving of the ears is comparablein these two works, and the short hair of our present portrait
may be a modification of the style representedby the earlier portrait. Neither conforms to the
imperial coiffureof its period.
In minute attentiveness to surface detail and finish this portrait is excelled by none that has
been discoveredin the Agora. As to its effectiveness as a portrait there is no way of judging, but
one suspects both the sculptor and his subject of a certain lack of imagination.
1
Graindor,Cosm~tes,no. 7, p. 313, pl. 17; I.G., 112, 3744. Lysiades is not dated to the year, but the only unassigned years
in the reign of Hadrian are in the thirties. Cf. J. Oliver, Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 85.
2 Bltimel,
R6mische Bildnisse, R 68, pl. 41.

24. PORTRAITOF A MAN, PERIOD OF HADRIAN Plate 16.

Inv. 8 1091.FoundJune29,1938in a Byzantinefoundation
nearthe southeastcornerof theTempleofAres
(K 8).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.375m., W. 0.205 m., H. chin to crown0.25 m.
A chipgonefromtop of head(seemingly pickedoffratherthanbrokenoff).Nosebrokenoff;lips,chinand
Most
eyebrowschipped. of left eye chipped;slighterdamageto right eye and eyelids.Hairand face both
weatheredandworn.Originalpolishedsurfacepreserved onlyonfrontof neck.
The head is made with a short tenon to be set into a draped statue, evidently one with a
garment coming close up around the neck.' The tenon is a narrow piece extending only about
4 cm. below the sternal notch, where the modelled part ends. In the back the tenon slopes
down from the hairline. The short hair, in small curls all over the head, covers the tops of the
ears. A wreath, evidently of metal, was attached by means of little drilledholes ranged in groups
of two or three around the front of the head. In the back are no holes, but the shallow groove
indicating the position of the band by which the wreath was fastened continues around the
back of the head. Only in front below the wreath are the locks of hair separated with the drill.
The very short beard starts in front of the ears and covers the sides of the cheeks and the chin,
 CATALOGUE 35
but leaves the lower lip free except for a suggestion of a tuft in the center. A thin mustache
covers the upper lip. Beard and mustache seem to be rendered by little strokes cutting into a
roughenedsurface.
The face as a whole is round, flattish and pleasant, but carefully modelled throughout. The
eyebrows are battered, but the hairs seem not to have been engraved or otherwise represented.
Nor do the eyes themselves seem to have been engraved or drilled. The eyeballs are rather flat;
the lids are of moderate width and thickness.
The cut of the hair and beard suggest a date in the Hadrianic period, and the fact that the
eyes are without engraved detail is against too late a date. The tendency to flatness and round-
ing off of corners in the lower part of the face points forward to the Antonine period, but the
modelling of forehead, eyebrows and eyes retains an angularity reminiscent of late Flavian and
Trajanicwork.2Since the head does not resembleany member of the imperialfamily, the wreath
is doubtless to be interpreted as a sign of priesthood. This is an attractive, well-made portrait,
though the features have lost much of their effectiveness through wear.
1 The statue of a seatedphilosopherfromthe Odeion(Hesperia,XIX, 1950,pl. 79b) is cut to hold a tenon of this type.
2 Cf.Nos. 18 and 19 above.

25. HERM PORTRAITOF MOIRAGENES,SON OF DROMOKLES,OF THE DEME KOILE,

EPONYMOSOF THETRIBEHIPPOTHONTIS,
PERIODOF HADRIAN Plate17.
Inv. S 586. Found May 24, 1935 in a late Roman deposit in a cistern south of the Hephaisteion (D 10).
Pentelic marble. H. overall 1.52 m.; Base: H. 0.22 m., W. 0.355 m., D. 0.278 m.; Shaft: H. to edge of bust
in front 0.985 m., H. to edge of bust in back 1.07 m., W. at base 0.22 m., W. with arms 0.392 m., H. of letters
0.009-0.02 m.; Head: H. chin to top 0.18 m.
Head broken off at neck, joins on with no chips missing. Penis, made in a separate piece, lost. Top of head
also a separate piece and now lost.
Published by T. L. Shear, Hesperia, V, 1936, pp. 16-17, fig. 14; A.J.A., XXXIX, 1935, pp. 443-444, fig. 7.

Across the top of the shaft below the bust runs the inscription:

MotpaycvrisApo-
!K
IpoKXiouS Koh'rIs
' lrrnrro-
TrrcbvuwloS

"Moiragenes,son of Dromokles, of the deme Koile, Eponymos of the tribe Hippothontis."'

Since this Moiragenesseems not to occur in any other extant inscription, his date is not deter-
minable by epigraphical means. The Moiragenes mentioned in a prytany list of the tribe
Hippothontis, I.G., II2, 1809, may well be a member of the same family, but cannot be identical
with our Moiragenes,since the inscription is dated to A.D. 170 or later, too late a date for the
style of our portrait.2The forms of the letters alone are of little help for the dating.
Moiragenesis clean-shaven and wears his lank hair cut to approximately the length that was
popular in the Julio-Claudian age. There is a sort of parting on the right side. Seeing that,
though the hair seems to be brushed forward in rather long locks from the crown of the head,
the ends rest high up on the forehead, one suspects that Moiragenes'coiffureis conditioned by
the desire to conceal a thin spot on top. The carving of the locks is far from the crisp definition
of Julio-Claudianhair. The soft, fine texture of thin hair is suggested by light engraving on the
surface of locks that are only lightly sketched with the chisel. This sort of treatment is seemingly
8*
86 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
related to the "chasing" technique used in the elaborate rendition of curly hair in the very late
Hadrianic and early Antonine periods, especially in Athens.3 The hair on the back of the head
is only roughly sketched with the chisel and not chased. The top of the head presents a flat,
rough-pickedsurface. Apparently the crown of the head consisted of a separate piece attached
with cement.
In composition the face shows its derivation from works such as the portrait of an elderly
man, above, No. 19. Particularly in the area around the mouth is this noticeable. The lines are
the same, only simplified, straighter and with a blunter emphasis. The edges of the lips have
disappeared altogether.4 The groove above the chin is more markedly a gable than before.
Below the chin the cords of the neck stand out as in the other portrait, but their salience is
more obvious, since the rest of the throat is less carefully modelled. The surface no longer
exhibits the hard polish that characterizesthe earlierwork. The convexities of the face are still
drastically simplified, but a softer finish, more suggestive of flesh, has again replaced the
granite-like quality of the Trajanic portrait.
A more basic difference occurs in the treatment of the eyes and the modelling of the area
around them. The eyes are still deep-set under shadowing brows, but the brows no longer have
sharp arriseswith flat facets below them. They droop in a soft fold over the outer cornersof the
eyes. The hairs are very sparsely indicated by fine engraving similar to that used on the hair of
the head. The eyelids do not overlap at the outer corners,and the lower lids are very thin.5 The
emphasis has shifted from the lids to the eyeballs, in which the irises are now lightly engraved
and the pupils hollowed in the conventional cardioidform.
The technical details noted in the treatment of the eyes and the hair point to a date in the
Hadrianic or early Antonine period; the survival of the Trajanic facial type and the beardless-
ness of the subject favor the earlier date. In the series of portraits of kosmetai, that of Sosis-
tratos of Marathon, set up in the archonship of P. Aelius Phileas, in A.D. 141/2,6 is the first
dated example in which the irises of the eyes are engraved and the pupils drilled. Since the
portrait of the kosmetes ClaudiusChrysippos,dated to the following year,7has a similar treat-
ment, it would seem that this innovation had taken hold in Athens by that time. The workshops
in which the portraits of kosmetai were made probably represent a fair sample of average
Athenian practice, neither wildly progressive nor unduly conservative. The portrait of the
kosmetes Onasos, son of Trophimos, of Pallene, set up in the archonship of Tib. Claudius
Lysiades,8 is in good Hadrianic style and has the eyeballs still uncarved. The archonship of
Lysiades is not fixed to a specific year, but the only years still unassignedin Hadrian's reign are
in the thirties. Accordinglyit would seem that it was in that decade that the practice of drilling
the pupils and engraving the irises of the eyes became current among Athenian portraitists.9
In any case Moiragenesmust be among the earlierAthenian examples. The small, high-placed
pupils and lightly engraved irises are characteristic of late Hadrianic and early Antonine work
in general, but in the case of Moiragenestheir carving seems particularly feeble and tentative
in contrast to the blunt assurance of the modelling in the lower part of the face. It is obvious
that we have here a mixture of conservatism and progress. If we knew in what proportionthey
were mixed we would know the date of the piece, or if we knew the date we could tell what the
proportion is. As it is, we are left to guess within the limits of the styles represented by the
earliest and latest elements of the work. Possibly still earlier and certainly a finer piece of work
is a portrait of a partly bald old man in Copenhagen,which was bought in Rome but ma y have
come originallyfromAthens.1o This likewise combinesa Trajanicfacial type with Hadrianic detail
 CATALOGUE 37
in the eyes. The surfaceappearssimilar to that of our present portrait, though the modelling is
more subtle and more varied. The flat facets at the outer ends of the eyebrows and the raised
veins at the temples recall the earlierAgora portraits Nos. 18 and 19 above.
One small feature of our present portrait is interesting, not for the chronology but for the
personality portrayed. Moirageneshas a swollen left ear, a "pancratiast'sear," a sign, no doubt,
of participation in sports duringhis youth." From the number of representationsof cauliflower
ears in portraits of Athenians it would appear that this was consideredrather a badge of honor
than a disfigurement.Young men of good family who had the right sort of education would
carry the marks of it proudly in later life, a memento of the age at which snobbery flourishedin
its purest and most exalted form.
Altogether, the portrait of Moiragenespresents in modest form but with perfect success an
intriguing character study of an average well-to-do Athenian of the time of Hadrian.
1 The
eponymos of the tribe was essentially a patron or benefactor who gave financial aid to the prytaneis in the perfor-
mance of their duties (J. Oliver, Hesperia, Suppl. VI, p. 3).
2 J. Notopoulos, Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, p. 22, Table I, dates I.G.,
II2, 1809 to A.D. 170-2 or 174-6 or 187. Other members
of the same family are mentioned in two recently discovered grave monuments discussed by E. Vanderpool and M. Mitsos
in Hesperia, XXII, 1953, no. 4.
8 Cf. the early Antonine portrait, No. 28 below. A similar scratchy engraving of the hair is to be found in a portrait of
a charioteer in the Terme (Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 234 b; a good close-up in Goldscheider, Roman Portraits, pl. 69) which
appears to be Trajanic.
4 A portrait of an unknown kosmetes (Graindor,Cosmetes,no. 3, pp. 300ff., pl. 16) dated by Graindorto the time of Trajan,
has a similar, though less simplified, treatment of the mouth and a similar general expression.
5 Generally speaking the eyelids are thinner and the contours of the eyebrows softer in Antonine portraits than in those
of the time of Trajan, and the change takes place in the time of Hadrian. Cf. the portrait of Hadrian from Herakleion in the
Louvre (Encyclope'diephotographiquede l'art, III, p. 294) and the bust of Hadrian in Naples (Paribeni, pl. 233); also the two
portraits of Sabina in the Terme (ibid., pls. 234-235).
6 Graindor,
Cosm~tes,no. 9, pp. 320ff., pl. 18; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 258 b; I.G., 112, 3739. The date given by Graindor
(139/40) is no longer accepted for the archonship of Phileas. The series of four successive archons of which he is the second
is currently dated either 140/1-143/4 or 141/2-144/5 (I.G., II2, 2047, note; Oliver, Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 85). It is clear,
however, that with the currently accepted date of 136/7 rather than 139/40 for the beginning of the paidotribia of Abaskantos
(Oliver, op. cit., p. 81) there is no choice. Cl. Chrysippos (Graindor, op. cit., no. 10, pp. 324ff., fig. 15; I.G., 112, 3740), who
was kosmetes in the seventh year of the paidotribia of Abaskantos, must have served in 142/3. It is accordingly impossible
to place the kosmetes Sosistratos, and with him the archon Phileas, in that year. The years of the four archons must therefore
be definitely fixed as 140/1-143/4.
7 See above, note 6.
8 Graindor,op. cit., no. 7, pp. 313ff., pl. 17; Paribeni, pl. 243.
9 The portraits of the imperial family, under the influence of those made in Rome, may have been the first in which the
eyes were engraved in Athens. A portrait of Sabina in the Athens National Museum (N.M. no. 449, Wegner, Arch. Anz.,
1938, col. 307, figs. 16-17), which wears a coiffure that does not appear on coins after 130 (cf. Wegner, op. cit., col. 304),
has the irises lightly engraved and the pupils hollowed. This head may serve also as a dating-point for the soft style of mod-
elling which replaces the hard style of the late Trajanic and early Hadrianic periods and points the way to the style of the
early Antonine period. An earlier portrait of Sabina, in the Museum of Vaison (Wegner, op. cit., figs. 14-15), still shows the
hard style.
10Poulsen, Catalogue,no. 463 a; Billedtavler,pl. 35; A.B. 390; Graindor,Athines de Tiberea Trajan, p. 191, note 4, fig. 29.
Graindorargues for a Trajanic date, but Poulsen dates the portrait, probably rightly, to the time of Hadrian.
11Cf. above, No. 14 and note 2.

26. FRAGMENTOF A PORTRAITOF A YOUTH (POLYDEUKION), EARLY ANTONINE

PERIOD Plate 18.
Inv. S 224.Foundin 1932in clearingthe bed-rockon the eastslopeof KolonosAgoraios.
Pentelic marble.Pres. H. 0.19 m., Pres. W. 0.215 m., Pres. D. 0.215 m.
Fragmentof upperpartof head.A considerable butnotmuchof right
amountof left sideof headpreserved,
side.Breakat bottomrunsbelowrighteye andthroughleft eye.Virtuallyno originalsurfacesurvives.
Publishedby Neugebauer, A.B.,text to nos.1198-99,fig. 10.
This pitiful remnant was recognized by Hekler as a part of a replica of a portrait identified
with reasonable certainty as that of Polydeukion, a relative and favorite pupil of Herodes
Atticus.1 Following his untimely death this young man was mourned extravagantly by Herodes
38 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
after the pattern of Hadrian's mourning for Antinous.2 There exist numerous copies of his
portrait, found both in Athens itself and on Herodes' estates elsewhere in Attica. The best-
preserved replica is now in Berlin (P1.44,c).3
1
Neugebauer, see above, lists all the known replicas, eight in all, and the pertinent literature. The reference to the Agora
head was given him by Hekler.
2 Graindor, HerodeAtticus,
pp. 117f.
8 Bought in Athens in 1844. Neugebauer, loc. cit., and Bltimel, RomischeBildnisse,
R 72, pl. 44.

27. PORTRAITHEAD OF A MAN (FROMA GRAVERELIEF), HADRIANICOR ANTONINE

PERIOD(?) Plate 18.
Inv. S 479.FoundApril17, 1934belowa moderncess-poolabovethe fountainhouseat the southwest
cornerof the Agora(H15).
Pentelic marble.H. of fragment0.19 m., Pres. D. of relief 0.075 m., T. of slab without relief ca. 0.07 m.
Someof background of reliefpreservedto both sidesof head.Fragmentbrokenoff at top alongline of
juncture of headwith background; brokendiagonallyacrossface below,the breakrunningfrommiddleof
right ear down through mouth to a point on left side of neck. Nose brokenoff. Marblestainedfromthe
cess-pool.
All surfaces, both of the background and of the relief, show the rough marks of the chisel
without traces of further smoothing by rasping or abrasion. The rough-pickedback of the slab
is preserved. The hair is brushed forward, rather long on the sides, but with the ends of the
front hair resting high up on the forehead. The locks are delineated by rough chisel strokes in
double curves. The man wears a short beard rendered by shallow curved strokes. The eyelids
are narrow but crisply carved. The eyeballs bulge, and the pupils are indicated by scooped
depressionsjust below the upper lid; there is no indication of the iris. Though it is possible that
the piece is unfinished, a simple chisel finish is common in ordinary grave reliefs, of which this
must be one. The short beard and the hollowed pupils indicate that the relief is not earlier
than the time of Hadrian.

28. PORTRAIT OF A MAN, EARLY ANTONINE PERIOD Plate 19.

Inv. S 335.FoundApril6, 193388
in a depositnearthe bottomof the wheelraceof a watermillof the fifth
centuryafter in
Christ the southeast
partof the excavationarea(Q 13).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.40 m., W. 0.33 m., H. chin to crown0.388m.
Headbrokenoff at neck;startof outwardflareto shouldersvisibleabovebreak.Tipof nosebrokenoff;
endsof someof curlschipped.A squarepatch(ca.0.12m. square)dowelledintobackof hair;brokeninto four
pieces,all of whichwererecovered.Dowelfoundin place.
Publishedby T. L. Shear,Hesperia,IV, 1935,pp. 416-418,figs.39-40;A.J.A., XXXVII,1933,p. 309,
pl. 88,2; Art and Archaeology,XXXIV, 1933,p. 290.
The head is considerably over life-size. Both hair and beard are medium long, curly and very
thick. The hair covers the head in a heavy thatch, with a cluster of curls hanging down over the
forehead. The basic shape of lock used is a slightly twisted strand with a double curve ending in
a small curl. Big, rather carelessly carved locks radiate from the crown, and from under these
emerge successively the ends of other layers, becoming more minute in treatment as they
approach the face. Short drill-channelsoccur in and between the front curls, while longer ones
are used to separate the larger locks in the back as well as in the front. Occasionally the center
 CATALOGUE 39
of a curl is pointed by a single drill-hole. A similarly moderate use of the drill is made in the
beard. The drill-workis subordinate in its effect, however, to the abundant fine engraving on
the surface of the locks, which resembles chasing in metal-work. The engraving is finer in the
front hair than in back, and still more delicate in the beard than it is in the forehead hair. The
mustache is long and thick, entirely concealing the upper lip except in the center where there
is a slight parting; its lower edge is ragged. The beard is treated as a uniform mass of rather
small locks, full of fine engraving. Tiny lines engraved into the skin surface mark the start of
the beard from the cheeks. There is no division of the beard into subordinate masses and very
little use of shadow for effect.
The face shows subtle modelling designed to cast little or no shadow. The eyebrows are not
sharp-edged or projecting, but smoothly rounded, with delicate incisions representing the
hairs. These little engraved lines seem to have been further thinned and blurred by reason of
the practice illustrated in the unfinishedhead, No. 35 below, of cutting them in the penultimate
surface and smoothing over them in the final stage of work. The eyes are set fairly deep behind
the eyebrows, but are themselves flat and unplastic. Almond-shaped,with thin lids, they have
delicately engraved irises and quite small cardioidpupils set close beneath the upper lids.
There is heavy flesh beneath the eyes, and the cheeks are full, with little modelling of the
flesh. The nose, smoothly modelled without sharp edges or definite planes, shows a slight curve
in profile, and the indentation between nose and forehead is marked. The neck seems to have
been short and thick.
Though this fine head has been published as a portrait of Septimius Severus,' both style and
physiognomy militate against the identification. While the cluster of curls hanging down on the
forehead that prompted the identification is indeed similar to that worn by Septimius Severus,
his most characteristic feature, the very round wide-open eyes which may be seen even in the
profileportraits on coins,2finds its diametricalopposite in the almond-shapedeyes and lowering
expression of our portrait. Another, though less serious, objection is the fact that the beard here
forms a unified mass, while that of Septimius Severus is generally split down the center into
two parts.3
Stylistically our portrait looks earlier than the time of Septimius Severus. Its most striking
characteristicis an overly delicate treatment of all surface details in contrast to the ponderous
solidity of the head as a whole. Nothing in this portrait except the hair has received a depth of
modelling proportionate to its mass. In Athens this sort of workmanshipis better paralleledin
the Antonine period than in the time of Septimius Severus. By his time a broader emphasis is
given to the features, the eyes in particular, and the use of the drill in hair and beard is freer
and coarser, more "impressionistic".4An earlier example of the same school, perhaps of the
same workshop, as that to which our head belongs is the splendid bust of Hadrian from the
Olympieion, now in the National Museum in Athens (P1. 45).5 It shares with our head the
delicate engraving and the avoidance of sharply defined contours in the flesh. The eyelids, for
instance, are blunted and rounded in contour, but bounded by very fine engraved lines, as in
our portrait. The irises of the eyes are likewise delicately engraved, and the pupils are tiny and
placed high up. The hair, on the other hand, is certainly less advanced than that of our head.
The locks on top of the head are linear, resembling those on portraits of Antinous,6 and while
there are drill-holes and some short channels in the front hair, the coiffure and beard style
of Hadrian do not admit of a very extensive use of the drill. The Olympieion Hadrian is not
closely dated, but it may be later than the actual reign of that emperor.
40 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
The colossal head of Lucius Verus from the Theater of Dionysos in Athens7 resembles the
Agora portrait in the contrast of mass and delicate detail and in the relative flatness of the face
surfaces. The similarity in the shape of the eyes, though marked, is more a matter of physiog-
nomy than of style; contemporary Antonine portraits, even from the same workshop, may
show very different treatment of the eyes in different persons.8
A portrait of Lucius Verus in the Terme, though no provenance is recorded for it, resembles
our head so closely in technique that Wegner felt it had to be the creation of an Athenian
artist, and dated it on this basis to the winter of 162/3, when Lucius Verus visited Athens on
the occasion of his Syrian expedition.9 Though it seems unlikely that every so-called new
creation of a portrait of an imperial personage, especially by a Greek artist working in Greece,
was necessarily drawn from the living model, it does seem reasonable to place the Terme por-
trait, which differs so markedly from the accepted official types, at a fairly early date, before
the standard type became current in Athens and the East.1o
A portrait in Leipzig, Athenian in style, which bears some resemblanceto Lucius Verus, but
is apparently not he, offers a fair parallel for the surface technique of hair and beard on our
portrait. It is again rather less advanced in the use of the drill."
In view of so many parallels among early Antonine works there seems to be no reason for
dating our Agora portrait so late as the reign of Commodus,much less Septimius Severus, even
did the features show a resemblance to one or the other of these two emperors, which they do
not. It is too bad that we do not know whom this excellent portrait represents. In scale and
quality it finds parallels only among the portraits of imperial personages, but the face shows
far more strength and rather more intelligence than the countenances of Antonine emperors
are wont to display. In Rome, portraits of important magistrates as well as those of emperors
were sometimes made in heroic size,'2 and it seems likely that we have here the portrait of some
Roman official whom the Athenians found reason to honor during the reign of Antoninus Pius
or Marcus Aurelius, and whose portrait was executed by the same workshop that created the
finer large-scale portraits of emperorsin this period.
1 Shear, Hesperia, IV, 1935, p. 416, retracts a suggestion made by him earlier (A.J.A., XXXVII, 1933, p. 309) to the
effect that the features resemble those of the portraits of Commodus. See below, note 3.
2
Cf. B.M.C., Empire, V, Pertinax to Elagabalus, plates passim. The portraits of Septimius Severus which Shear cites as
the closest parallels for the Agora head, a head at Ince Blundell Hall (Poulsen, Greekand Roman Portraits in English Country
Houses, no. 95, p. 101) and a bronze portrait statue in Nikosia in Cyprus (Arch. Anz., 1934, col. 99, fig. 13) have eyes no less
round and staring than those of other portraits of the same emperor.
a A portrait of Septimius Severus in Cairo (of unknown provenience, Graindor, Bustes et statues-portraitsd'Atgypteromaine,
no. 18, p. 62, pl. 17) which Graindor finds closer to Attic works of the imperial period than to Roman works of the time,
shows no use of the drill in the hair or the beard and lacks both the cluster of curls on the forehead and the long divided beard.
Nevertheless, it is recognizable as Septimius Severus by the wide, round eyes and open brow. It is worth noting that, while
Graindor cites our Agora head as a parallel for the style of this work, he does not for a moment suggest calling it Sep-
timius Severus. Referring to Shear's first publication of the head (see above, note 1) he calls it: "tote que l'on a identifi6
avec Commode et qui est, en tout cas, de son temps". There is scarcely enough similarity in style between the Cairohead and
ours to require that they be of the same date. Besides the greater emphasis on the eyes with their wide, shallow pupils, the
Cairo portrait shows an almost geometrical organization into simple planes and lines (note the forehead wrinkles) which is in
sharp contrast to the small, soft surface modulations of the Agora head.
4 Compare portraits of kosmetai: Graindor, Cosm'tes, nos. 11-13, pp. 329-337, pl. 19 (Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 259;
Paribeni, pl. 245) and figs. 17-18 (Hekler, op. cit., pl. 260 b; A.B. 387).
s This identification is not universally accepted, cf. Erd6lyi, ArchaeologiaiErtesitti, LI, 1938, p. 113.
6 E.g. Hekler, op. cit., pl. 251.
7 Wegner, pl. 45 b, Athens N.M. no. 350.
8 Compare the portraits of Herodes Atticus (A.B. 1196-7; Paribeni, pl. 310; Graindor, HdrodeAtticus, p. 132, figs. 7-8;
Neugebauer, Die Antike, X, 1934, pl. 9) and of Marcus Aurelius (Wegner, pl. 30) from Marathon, both now in the Louvre.
In spite of the exact correspondancein style of these two heads which must have been carved in the same workshop if not
by the same hand, the pupils of the eyes have a completely different shape, and the size of the eyes is exaggerated in the
portrait of Herodes, while the eyes of MarcusAurelius are of normal size (this being in keeping with the extravagant character
of the one as compared with the moderation of the other).
 CATALOGUE 41

9 Wegner, p. 13, pl. 46. Wegner uses the Agora portrait as a sample of Greekstyle, but without questioning the identification
as Septimius Severus.
10 The two portraits of Lucius Verus in the National Museum in Athens shown in Wegner, pl. 45 are of the standard type,
though clearly Greek in workmanship. West, II, p. 143, no. 2, identifies the Terme portrait as Aelius Verus. It is difficult at
present to identify portraits of Aelius Verus with certainty, and it is not altogether impossible that he is represented in our
Agora head.
11 Poulsen, KunstmuseetsAarskrift, 1929-31, p. 43, figs. 47-49.
12 Cf.
Bernoulli, R.I., II, p. 4.

29. PORTRAIT OF A PRIEST (?), ANTONINE PERIOD Plate 18.

Inv. S 526.FoundFebruary26, 1935in a Turkishdepositin the centralpartof the Agora(M-N12).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.275m., W. 0.19 m., H. chin to crown0.215 m.
Brokenoff at neck,the breakrunningjust belowendof beardin front.Upperedgeof bustpreservedin
back.Wholeheadmuchweathered,wornandchipped.Nosebrokenoff;foreheadcurlsknockedoff; a chip
gonefromrightsideof chin.
This head, slightly under life-size and broken from a bust, represents an elderly man. The
folds of an himation are preservedat the back of the neck. The limply curly hair falls low on the
back of the neck and in bunches in front of the ears, but leaves the ears themselves partially
uncovered. There were short curls above the forehead. The head is encircledby a rolledfillet, tied
in back and with the ends hanging down. Above the fillet is a shallow channel about 11 cm. wide
all around, as though some additional wreath or ornament were to be fastened around the head
here, but there are no holes for the attachment of metal, and the nature of the addition remains
a mystery. The hair on top of the head is arrangedin large flat locks, roughly sketched, radiat-
ing from the crown. The drill is used freely in the locks below the fillet, both to separate the
crescent-shapedlocks and to divide strands within the locks. The beard, which is short on the
chin but full on the sides and throat, shows similar crescent locks and coarse drilling. A wide
mustache covers the upper lip but does not droop down on the sides.
The face is thin, its modelling flat and dry. The wrinkles in the forehead are hastily engraved
dashes. The eyes are small and deep-set, with thin lids, and seem to be without engravedinterior
detail. The diagonal folds between the cheeks and the mouth area are strongly emphasized,
giving the face a look of wearinessthat seems to find a reflection also in the deep-set eyes.
The features bear a certain resemblanceto those of Antoninus Pius,' and the cut of the hair
and beard looks like a more unkempt and shaggier version of his mode. At the same time there
is a faint reminiscence of certain Hellenistic portraits, especially that of Demosthenes.2 The
subject of our portrait may have been a man of letters who deliberately affected a resemblance
to famous men of the past. If, however, the groove above the fillet was made to hold a wreath,
there is the possibility that our portrait is that of a priest who held the same office as our
No. 49. An Antonine portrait found in the Theater of Dionysos in Athens3 wears the combina-
tion of strophionand wreath and has a sentimentality of expression and a shagginess of coiffure
far in excess of that of our head.
In addition to the resemblancenoted to portraits of Antoninus Pius, the rather thin modelling
of our piece suggests a date nearer the middle than the end of the second century. The fact that
the eyes are apparently unengraved may be due to imitation of the past, but it is also possible
that the feeble shallow engraving of early Antonine work may have been obliterated by the
damage that the eyes have suffered.
1 Cf. Wegner, pl. 3.
2
Cf .Hekler, Bildniskunst, pls. 56-57; Laurenzi, p1. 22, no. 61.
a Hekler, op. cit., p1. 262 b; Paribeni, pl. 278.
42 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
30. PORTRAIT OF A MAN (UNFINISHED), ANTONINE PERIOD Plate 20.
Inv. 8 938.FoundMay27, 1937in a welldugthroughthe floorof a cisternto the westof theTholos(G 11).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.82 m., W. 0.22 m., H. chin to crown0.31 m.
Headbrokenoffat neckin a veryirregular line.End of nosebrokenoff; both eyebrowssplit offdownto
the uppereyelids.Lobeof left earbrokenoff.Surfaceof marblefreshandwhite,littleweathered.
The head is obviously unfinished. The hair is curly, in a typical Antonine cut, not too long on
the back of the neck and with tumbled curls over the forehead. In the back of the head the
hair is blocked out in the roughest possible manner. In the front the locks have been shaped
with the chisel and then riddled with coarse drill channels. The locks are crescent or flame-
shaped, overlapping in various complicated ways. The mustache is short, but the tips of it dip
down past the corners of the mouth. The beard grows close up under the lower lip, leaving no
space bare. It is not long, but very curly, and it, like the hair, is riddled with drill channels.
The beard strengthens rather than obscures the line of the chin, and only a few short ends
straggle onto the throat.
The modelling of the face shows only unsmoothed chisel work. It has yet to go through the
stages of rasping, engraving and final smoothing. In the finished work the pupils of the eyes
would certainly have been drilled and the irises engraved.
The style of wearing the hair and beard places the head in the Antonine period, and the
quantity of drillworkmakes it unlikely that it is earlier than the time of Marcus Aurelius. The
eyes with a slight puffiness below the lower lids recall portraits of Lucius Verus,' and the short
mustache is worn by him in the same form which we have here. The short beard completely
covering the chin, on the other hand, does not occur in his portraits. The use of the drill in the
hair creates much the same effect as we have in the later portraits of Marcus Aurelius2and
in the portraits of Commodus,3but the hair is less curly. The portrait is not identifiable as any
one of the Antonine emperors; more probably it represents a local worthy who followed the
imperial fashion. This was probably not destined to be a first-rate portrait (it is far from a first-
rate piece of marble that was used for it), but in proportions and general character it is a
respectable piece of work so far as it goes.
The head was found in a deposit dating from the time of the Herulian sack of A.D. 267.4 As
in the case of No. 35 below we are confronted here with the question what the unfinished head
was doing in the approximately one hundred years before it was definitely thrown on the scrap
heap, but here there is even less evidence to lead us to a solution.
1 Wegner,pls. 39-46.
2 28-29.
1bid., pls.
8 ibid., pls. 49, 50, 56.
* The two third-centuryheads,Nos. 38 and 48 below,camefromlowerdownin the same deposit.

31. FRAGMENT OF A PORTRAIT OF A MAN, ANTONINE PERIOD Plate 20.

Inv. S 1245. Found May 28, 1947 in a post-Roman deposit north of the Middle Stoa near its west end (112).
Pentelic marble. Pres. H. 0.155 m., Pres. D. 0.065 m.
Lowerpart of face only preserved.Split off at the back in the plane of a micaceousstreakin the marble.
Broken off at the top along line of lower eyelids. End of nose broken off. Beard somewhat worn away just at
chin. Surface otherwise fresh and well-preserved.
In spite of the flat way in which the piece is split off, the dimensions (life-size) and the fact
that the beard is carefully finished even under the chin suggest that the fragment is part of a
head worked in the round rather than broken from a relief.
 CATALOGUE 43
The beard is very full, but nowhere long. It comes high on the cheeks, and where it starts the
artist has not minded cutting into the skin with little incised strokes. The whole beard is made
up of tiny locks drawn with the chisel and subsequently given relief by tiny curved drill-
channels. No attempt is made to collect the little locks into a pattern of larger clusters; the
beard has the all-over sameness of a sponge. It fills the depression between mouth and chin,
and engulfs the chin in a formless mass. The ends of the mustache merge with the beard on the
sides. The opening of the mouth is marked by a deep drill-channel,but the mouth itself is not
treated as an entity. It is just an opening in the beard. In general the face shows a fair amount
of surface modelling without giving much feeling of underlying structure. The flesh under the
eyes and the heavy cheeks separated by deep folds from the upper lip suggests middle age.
The surface of the skin is carefully smoothed.
The use of the drill in the beard points to the Antonine age, and the lack of any plastic con-
ception of the locks suggests that the work is not early in the period. The finicky attention to
detail best fits the time of Commodus.' This portrait has not yet reached the stage of the "im-
pressionistic" kosmetai portraits which Graindor dates around the turn of the century,2 but
such care as has been lavished upon it seems largely wasted, for it is, while not the worst,
certainly the dullest portrait that the Agora has produced.
1
Cf. the portraits of Commodusin Wegner, pls. 54-55, especially pl. 55 (Vatican, Sala dei Busti, 287).
2
Graindor, Cosmates,nos. 12-14, pp. 332-339, figs. 17-19.

32. PORTRAIT HEAD OF A WOMAN (FROM A RELIEF), ANTONINE PERIOD Plate 20.
Inv. S 258.Foundin 1933in the demolition
of a modernhousein thenorthwestpartof the excavationarea
(J 7).
Pentelicmarble.H. of fragment0.16 m., D. of reliefca. 0.09 m.
Headbrokenoff frombody at neck.Background of reliefbrokenawayall around.Topof headcut or
brokenaway,slantingdiagonallyback.Topof earandallof hairchippedawayonrightsideof head.Faceand
haironleft sidebatteredandconsiderably
weathered.

The head, which faced toward the proper right in three-quarters front view, portrays a
middle-aged woman. Her hair is parted in the center and combed back to the sides in waves,
leaving most of the ear uncovered. A braid is wound aroundthe top of the head. It is represented
as a torus engraved with a zigzag pattern, a convention common in coin portraits. Between the
braid and the waves is a narrow flat strip that may be either a fillet or, more probably, an
additional twist of hair wound round the head.' The face seems to have been well modelled.
Prominent cheekbones and jawbones and a small pointed chin make its outline polygonal rather
than oval. The mature age of the subject is suggested by the rather deep hollows under the
eyes, the diagonal grooves from the nose down, and the heavy flesh along the jawline. The
pupils of the eyes are represented by tiny drilled holes (there are two, one above the other, in
the right eye) and the outline of the iris is engraved.
The coiffure is that of Faustina the Elder, and the style of the portrait would fit a date in
the early Antonine period. Both in technique and in characterizationthis seems to have been
a thoroughly competent bit of work.
1 Cf. the female head on the Alcestis sarcophagusin the Vatican (dated 161-170), Arch. Anz., 1938, col. 319, fig. 26 (left).
44 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
33. PORTRAIT OF FAUSTINA THE YOUNGER (A.D. 145-175) Plate 21.
FoundApril6, 1933builtinto a Byzantinewalloverthe areaof the northporchof the Library
Inv. S 88336.
of Pantainos(Q13).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.245 m., W. 0.195m., Pres. D. 0.155 m., H. chin to crown0.245 m.
Headbrokenoffjust belowchin;onlya smalltriangleof necksurfaceremainson left side,noneon right.
Nosebrokenoff.Allprojectingsurfacesbattered:chin,lips,cheeks,eyebrows,crestsof wavesin hair.
The way in which the head is cut and weathered suggests that the face and neck were carved
in a separate piece and attached by means of a dowel in the back to a draped statue with the
mantle pulled over the head. The back part of the head is missing; the cut surface, roughly
hacked with the pointed chisel, begins at a little distance forward from the crown of the head
and slopes back behind the ears. In this surface, 0.03 m. from the top edge, is a slot 0.03 m. long
and 0.01 m. wide going down into the marble for a depth of 0.05 m. The surface of the hair is
unfinished over a large area on the right side, and this area is weathered in the manner of a
joint surface onto which water has seeped and stood. A series of first century B.C. portrait
statues found at Magnesia on the Maeandershows this technique of dowelling in the piece in
which the face and neck is cut, though there the dowel-holesare square and larger than that in
our piece.' It was more usual in Roman times to cut the head and the upper part of the mantle
in one piece.
The pupils of the eyes are drilled, shallow and roughly circular in shape. The outline of the
iris is engraved. The hair is combed back from a center part in loose waves that frame the face.
The wavy strands are chisel-cut, intermediate between fine and coarse. The drill is used only
for the center points of two small spiral curls that hang down one on each side in front of the
ears. The carving of the face is flat and shallow throughout. The flesh surface is carefully
smoothed and was no doubt originally polished. The workmanship,though uninspired, is very
careful. A fine piece of pure white marble was used.
This life-sized head of a young woman with a smooth round face and a vacuous expression is
without depth of characterization, and most of its surface beauty has been battered away. It
would have little interest, in its present state, were it not that it reproducesin all its essential
features an equally characterlessportrait from the Nymphaion of Herodes Atticus in Olympia
(P1. 44, b) which is the only epigraphically authenticated sculptured portrait of Faustina the
Younger.2
The feature common to the two heads that first catches the attention is the little spiral lock
that hangs down in front of each ear, curling back toward the back of the head. A closer look
reveals that the outline of the wide waves swept away from a central part is likewise the same. So
too is the shape of the smooth, roundface with its shallow modelling. The eyebrowsproject very
little. The eyes are flatly carved with thin lids, the pupils not too deeply drilled, the elliptical
outline of the iris engraved with a fine line. The mouth is short and straight, with full lips
slightly parted. The chin, now damaged on the Agora head, was evidently small and round as
it is on the Olympia one.
The coiffure of the Agora head cannot be compared in all details to that of the Olympia
Faustina, since the back of the head was covered. The latter wears a cone-shaped coil of braids
on top of the head, a common coiffure of her mother, the elder Faustina, but one that never
appears on coins of Faustina the Younger.3 The weathered joint surface on the right side of
our head implies that the mantle covered the hair unsymmetrically, coming farther forward on
the right side than on the left. Beyond this we know nothing definite about the type of statue
 CATALOGUE 45
to which our portrait belonged. Doubtless it was one of the familiar draped types based on
Hellenistic originals that were used over and over for female portraits in the Roman period.4
Aside from the rough trimming of the joint surface, the technique of the Agora head is of
relatively high quality. The chiselled lines are sharper and more delicate, the surface more
carefully smoothed, than in the Olympia head. The divergency of the type from all the coin
types and from all the properlysculpturaltypes that have been identified by means of the coins
makes it probable that this is a local Greek creation based on slight evidence as to the actual
appearance of the lady herself. The present replica is of interest as showing that the Olympia
Faustina the Younger was not an &1rmag •y6Esvov but a reproduction of a current Greek type.
1
Watzinger, Magnesia am Maeander, p. 199, figs. 198-200.
2
Olympia, III, p1s. 68, 1 and 69, 5. Kunze and Schleif, OlympischeForschungen,I, pl. 25 (left) and pl. 26 (right).
3 Cf. Wegner, pp. 52, 216.
4 The Olympia Faustina uses the type of the Petite Herculanaise, a type favored for girls. Possibly the Agora statue was
in the type of the GrandeHerculanaise, a somewhat later statue showing Faustina in the role of matron. I owe this suggestion
to Margarete Bieber.

34. PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN, PERIOD OF FAUSTINA THE YOUNGER Plate 21.

Inv.8 801.FoundOctober
10,1986builtintoa modernhouseinthesouthern
partoftheAgoraarea(M17-18).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.28 m., W. 0.235 m., Pres. D. 0.135 m., H. chin to crown0.28 m.
Wholebackof headmissing,the breakrunningdownfromcrownof headin frontof earsandunderchin.
Nose,lips andpointof chinbrokenoff; eyebrowsand eyes damaged.Tracesof plasteradhereto face;lime
in hair.
incrustation

The hair is parted in the center, with loose waves framing the face. They must have covered
all but the lobes of the ears. The strands are carved with the chisel, coarsely drawn, but not
monotonously equal and parallel. The hairs of the eyebrows seem to have been engraved, with
rather coarse lines. The shape of the pupils of the eyes is no longer discernible, but they must
have been drilled. Traces show that the outline of the iris was sharply engraved. The modelling
is flat. The skin is carefully smoothed and may have been polished, though the surface is now
weathered.
This much-damaged portrait of a woman is over life-size, being comparable in scale to the
male portrait, No. 17 above. In its wretched state of preservation the head does not admit of
positive identification or even of positive dating. Certain similarities, however, suggest a
relation to the preceding, No. 33: the smooth, round face, the flat modelling, the sloping flesh
beneath the chin. Though the waves framing the face dip lower over the forehead and in front
of the ears, their outline is similar. The coiffureas a whole, however, cannot have been the same.
That of the present head was evidently a simple, all-over waved arrangement, probably with
a knot in back, but without any special treatment on top. The surface of the hair is carved
with a coarse vitality completely lacking in the other head. A peculiarity to be noted is that
the shorter strands end in points, one on the left side in the first wave, the other on the right
side in the second wave.
Incomplete though it is, the coiffure of our head seems datable to the time of Faustina the
Younger or her immediate successors. Such loose, natural waves dipping low over the forehead
are not common later, when the tendency is to narrower,stiffer waves such as those exemplified
in the wig-like coiffures of Julia Domna.' Presumably the present head with its simple all-over
46 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
waved coiffurewould not be earlier than A.D. 153-4, when this style is first shown on the coins
of Faustina the Younger.2 It is not impossible that the portrait represents Faustina herself.
That would explain the large scale and the rather coarse, generalized treatment, frequent in
provincial portraits of rulers, less so in those of private persons. Nothing in the shape of the face
or the features as they are preserved would contradict such an assumption, but only the wide
upper eyelids are clear enough to count positively in favor of it.
1
Cf. portraits of Julia Domna in the Terme, Paribeni, pl. 290, and in Houghton Hall, Poulsen, Greekand Roman Portraits
in English Country Houses, no. 97, p. 102. Typical examples of third-century waves may be seen in Hekler, Bildniskultst,
pls. 300-304.
2B.M.C., Empire, IV, p. xliv, issue (4), pl. 23, 13-15. For this style see also Wegner, p. 50, pl. 68, k and o.

35. PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN, PERIOD OF FAUSTINA THE YOUNGER Plate 22.

togetherwith debrisfrom
Inv. S 1237.FoundMay16, 1947in a wellon the west slopeof the Areopagus
the Heruliansackof A.D.267(C20).1
Pentelic marble.H. 0.45 m., W. 0.24 m., H. chin to crown0.245 m.
Completeexceptfor a chipgonefromleft side of nose.Publishedby H. A. Thompson,
Hesperia,XVII,
1948,p. 179,pl. 57.
The head, worked separately with a tenon for setting into a draped statue, is unfinished. The
face and neck have been worked over with a heavy rasp. The part around the base of the neck
has been left in a roughly chiselled state. On each side of the more or less cylindrical tenon is a
protruding mass that would have had to be removed before the portrait could be set into its
torso. The hair is only roughly chiselled out into its main design. On the back of the neck is
left a rough trapezoidal area out of which were to be carved the stray wisps escaping below the
hairline. In the waves to either side of the part in front are two measuring-points,small rough
protuberancesin the center of which are drilled points.
The hair is parted in the center with heavily crimped waves framing the face and drawn
back into a knot rather high up on the back of the head. All but the lobes of the ears are
covered. A rolled fillet separates the waves around the face from the top part of the hair, which
is divided into four sections like those of a "melon coiffure"except that the side sections do not
narrowtoward the back, but continue in a wide band around the back of the head, overlapping
the center sections. Behind the ears a long wisp escaping below the hairline on each side is
twisted at its end into a single corkscrewcurl.
The eyes are flat and almond-shaped. The pupils are drilled in a deep cup shape, the outline
of the iris sharply engraved. The eyebrows, engraved with rather coarse parallel strokes, meet
in the center.
The lady representedin this life-sized unfinished portrait is marked by the rolled fillet that
she wears as either an empress or a priestess. Both the modelling of her face and the way in
which she wears her hair show that she belongs to the period of the Antonines. The coiffure
in its main elements seems based on some of the earlier coiffures of Faustina the Younger.
A separate band of waved hair framing the face appears on coins dated ca. A.D. 150-3.2 On
these the top hair is not further divided, but drawn straight back into a knot of braids. Coins
just a few years earlier than these show a melon coiffure on top, but loops instead of simple
waves framing the face.3 Thus, though our head does not reproduceexactly the coiffure of any
coin type, it shows most resemblanceto those around A.D. 150.
 CATALOGUE 47
Fortunately,however,we have an exactly dated sculptural parallel,which prevents us
from dating a provincialportraitsuch as ours too closely on the basis of the coins alone. A
portraitof the priestessMelitine,now in the Louvrebut originallyfoundin the Piraeus,4has
the bandof looselywavedhairframingthe face, the divisionof the top hairinto foursegments
(hereintermediatebetweena standardmeloncoiffureand the ratherodd segmentationof the
Agorahead) and the small bun in back. The inscriptionon the bust gives the date: in the
archonshipof Philisteides,i. e. A.D. 163/4.5Melitinelacks the corkscrewcurls on the side of
the neck. Such curls do not appearon any of the coins, but we have them on a portraitof
Faustinathe Youngeroccurringin fourreplicasin the NationalMuseumin Athens.6The type
is dated by Wegnerto the sixties of the secondcenturyon the basis of its "sub-dividedwave
coiffure",which appearson coins of this date.' The numberof subdivisionsis reducedin the
Agoraportraitandin that of Melitine.
All in all, a date in the 160'sor thereaboutsseemsto suit the Agoraportraitfairlywell. The
face showsrathertoo muchcharacterto be that of Faustinaherself,consideringhow different
it looksfromthe virtuallycontemporary portraitsin the NationalMuseum.Provincialportraits
of membersof the imperialhouseholdneed not always look like the personportrayed,but
when they do not, they tend to be blank and generalized.The Olympiaportraitof Faustina
the Youngerand its replicafromthe Agoradiscussedabovearea goodexampleof this.8
In contrastto the flat, unmodelledcheeksof the Faustina,the presenthead showsquite a
bit of subtle modellingin the cheeks.This modelling,however,in typicallyAntoninefashion,
is so subduedthat it is not visible at all except in the most favorablelight.9Also it is largely
superficial,with little referenceto the underlyingfacial structure.Contrastthe flatnessof the
eyes and eyesocketarea with the full modulationsof the soft flesh in the cheeksand around
the mouth.
The expressionis calm, perhapsa little pensive,but hardlythe vacant stare that Faustina
generallywears. One has the impressionthat the lady represented,perhaps,an Athenian
priestess,is well characterizedand that the portrait,had it beencompleted,wouldhave been a
very good one.
In its unfinishedstate the portraitis an interestingillustrationof the sculptor'stechnique.
It is a stage - or perhapswe shouldsay two stages - moreadvancedthan the portraitdiscus-
sed below,No. 36. The fleshpartshave been reducedwith the raspto theirpenultimatesurface
and the eyes and eyebrowshave been drilledand engraved.For the face there remainsthe
final smoothingand perhapspolishing,for the hair the detailedcarvingof the strandswith
the chisel.The point most worthnotingabout the presenthead is that the detailsof eyes and
eyebrowswere cut beforethe final smoothingof the face.
1 This was the well of a house of Roman date, discussed by R. S. Young in Hesperia, XX, 1951, p. 275, "House N". The
well contained debris from the destruction of the house at the time of the Herulian sack, and it seems that the unfinished
portrait must have been kept in the house as decoration. For a finished, but damaged portrait similarly used see above,
No. 14.
2 B.M.C., Empire, IV, p. xliv, issues
(2) and (3), pl. 23, 6-11; Wegner, p. 49, pl. 63, e-f.
3 B.M.C., Empire, IV, p. xliv, issue
(1), pl. 22, 14, 15 and 18, A.D. 147-ca. 150; Wegner, p. 49, pl. 63, a, b, g.
4 Louvre no. 3068. Published by E. Michon, Mdmoiresde la Soci4tdNationale des Antiquaires de France, LXXV, 1915-1918,
pp. 91-129 (a front view of the whole bust is shown on p. 93); Goldscheider, Roman Portraits, pl. 68 (a very close close-up
which does not show the coiffure).
5 1.G., II2, 2887.
6 Wegner, pp. 55, 210f., pl. 38. The fact that one of the replicas was found at Marathon
suggests that Herodes Atticus,
who seems to have gone in for mass production of portraits (cf. above, No. 26), may have commissioned this one.
Ibid., pp. 50, 54f.
8 Above, No. 83.
' Cf. No. 28 above.
48 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
36. PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN, A.D. 160-180 Plate 23.
Inv. S 862.FoundMay12, 1933in a hollowin thefloorof a smallroomon the west side of the Libraryof
Pantainos,a roomwhichwasevidentlya sculptor'sworkshop(R 14).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.40 m., W. of head, 0.185 m., H. chin to crown0.215 m.
Almostperfectlypreserved.
Publishedby T. L. Shear,Hesperia,IV, 1935,pp. 415-416,figs.37-38;A.J.A., XXXVII, 1933,p. 546,
fig.6A;ArtandArchaeology, XXXIV,1983,p. 289.
The portrait is made to be set into a drapedstatue. The lower part, which was intended to be
inserted into the statue, is approximately a frustum of a cone. The piece is unfinished. The
flesh surface of the face and neck has been left in a somewhat roughly chiselled state, except
for the forehead, which has been gone over with a rasp. In doing this the sculptor has left a
little strip about 0.004 m. wide along the eyebrow ridges. The eyebrows, engravedin this slightly
raised surface, would have seemed in the finished portrait to be plastically rendered. In the
center of the chin is a tiny drilled hole which served as a sculptor's measuring-point. There
are two more in the hair, drilled into small protuberancesleft at the first wave out from the
part on either side. Except for the two measuring-points and a rough area on the back of the
neck out of which escaping wisps of hair were to be carved, the hair seems finished, or nearly
so. It is parted in the center and drawn back in simple all-over waves to a small knot of coiled
braids at the back of the head. The waves are narrowin the center near the part and widen as
they go back. They cover all but the lower parts of the ears. The ears are only roughly blocked
out; the marble is not yet removed from behind them. The eyes are convexly rounded with
very wide upper and lower lids. The pupils are not yet drilled nor is the iris engraved.
The simple coiffure shown in this life-sized portrait of a middle-aged woman corresponds
most closely to that worn by Lucilla on coins probably to be dated after A.D. 169, though it
differs little from the hair style shown on some of the coins with the legend Lucilla Augusta,
which fall between A.D. 164 and 169.1 This coiffureis substantially the same as that worn by
Faustina the Younger between 154 and 161, but Lucilla's version shows a wider, flatter chignon
- Faustina's is more knob-like - and the hair does not extend so low down on the forehead.2
On the Agora head the hair beside the part grows up, forming a widow's peak, instead of
dipping instantly down on either side, as it does in the sculptured portraits of Faustina as well
as in the three preceding Agora heads (Nos. 33-35). The waves are narrow near the center
front and widen as they go back.
This is a strong portrait, both in modelling and in characterization. Even without their
engraved detail the eyes dominate the face. The very wide lids and the strongly curved eyeballs
find parallels in many Antonine portraits, notably in those of Commodus,but in other respects
the lady of our portrait shows no particular resemblanceto members of the ruling family. The
mouth is small in proportion to the eyes and nose. The lips are thin and tightly closed, but
very slightly upturned at the cornersin a bare suggestion of a smile that, in combination with
the eyes, gives the face an intelligent, alive expression. The chin is small, sharp and definite.
No doubt the final smoothing would have rounded its outline somewhat. It is hard to know
how far our sculptor would have gone in smoothing and polishing this portrait had he finished
it, and how much, if any, of its strength he would have lost thereby. Comparisonwith a finished
head of about the same period in Copenhagensuggests, however, that the general effect would
not have changed much.3 Though the Copenhagen head represents a woman seemingly less
intelligent and certainly less attractive than the subject of the Agora portrait, it shows the same
blunt quality in the modelling and equal forthrightness in the characterization.
 CATALOGUE 49
As in the case of the preceding Agora portrait, No. 35, there is nothing to indicate why this
one was abandoned before it was finished. The sculptor's workshopin which it was found seems
to have continued in operation for about one hundredyears longer, for the present portrait may
be dated somewhere around A.D. 170, but small bits of unfinished sculpture (of a very much
lower order than the piece under discussion) were found in the vicinity mingled with debris
from the destruction of the area by the Herulians in A. D. 267. The portrait itself was found
lying in a hole in the floor filled with destroyed mud-brick and other debris, dating no doubt
from the time of the same disaster. It may be that the unfinished portrait was kept in the
workshop for a possible re-use of the marble which never took place.
1 Wegner, p. 75, pl. 64, b, c, f, g; Mattingly, B.M.C., Empire, IV, Introduction, pp. cxxxiii f., dates the coins with the
legend Lucilla Augusta to the years of her marriage with Lucius Verus, those with the longer legend Lucilla Aug. Antonini
Aug. F., emphasizing her relation to Marcus Aurelius, after her remarriagein 169 to Pompeianus (this is the reverse of the
relative dating accepted by Wegner).
2
Compare the coin portraits of Lucilla, Wegner, pl. 64, b, c, f, g with those of Faustina, ibid., pl. 63, k and o.
* Hekler, Bildniskunst,
pl. 286; Billedtavler,pl. 59, no. 710; A.B. 759.

37. PORTRAIT OF A MAN, ca. A.D. 210-220 Plate 24.

Inv. S 517.FoundFebruary18, 1935lyingoverbedrockin a ninthto tenthcenturydepositsouthwestof
the Tholos(F 12).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.291m., W. 0.235 m.
Headbrokenoffdiagonally fromneck.Breakrunsthroughrightearandfollowsjawlinearound,dippingon
left sideto includepartof neckbelowleft ear.Onrightsidea joiningfragmentaddsupperbackpartof ear
andsomeof hairbehindit. End of nosebrokenoff; edgeof left earchipped.Headweatheredto a lighttan
colorbrokenby patchesof incrustation.Surfacein fairlygoodcondition.
Publishedby T. L. Shear,A.J.A.,XXXIX, 1935,p. 181,fig.10.
This is a portrait of a rather young man. The short, curly hair of the head shows a moderate
amount of drillworkin the front curls. The closely cropped beard is rendered by small curved
incisions in a roughened surface. The eyes have cardioid pupils, shallowly cut, and the outline
of the iris is engraved. The vigorously modelled forehead and the sharply defined eyebrows
suggest an energetic character. The force of the gaze is accentuated by the way in which the
eyes are set in deep behind the overhanging eyebrows and look up from under them, but the
wide, shallow pupils and the thin, sharp outline of the iris give the eyes rather an appearance
of clear, calm appraisal than one of passionate intensity. From the eyes down, the face looks
relaxed, good-humored and well-fed. The cheeks are smooth and full, the mouth mobile, the
chin slightly double. Asked to define this man's calling from his countenance, one would
probably guess that he was a well-to-do citizen, an official or a public benefactor, rather than a
philosopher or other intellectual, but this is all pure conjecture. From what is preserved, it is
impossible even to say what the original form of the portrait was, whether bust, herm or full-
length statue.
It has been suggested that the man represented may have been a kosmetes, the head of the
college of ephebes.' Technically, the head is rather superior to most of the portraits of the
Athenian kosmetai, showing none of that impressionistic haste of execution which, while it
testifies to the cleverness of the makers of the kosmetai portraits, undoubtedly originatedfrom
motives of economy on the part of the donors.2If our man was a kosmetes, as he may well have
been, he was a little more expensively honored than some of his contemporarieswho held that
post.
4
50 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
In his short, curly hair and the close cut of the beard and mustache the subject of our portrait
follows the mode established by Caracalla (A.D. 211-217). The intensive modelling of the
forehead is in unexpected contrast to the smooth surface of the cheeks, but correspondsclosely
to the forehead modelling in portraits of the scowling emperor, whose frown motivates the
complicated relief of his brow. Also reminiscent of portraits of Caracallais the way in which
the eyes look up from underneath the heavy eyebrows.3
The carving of the eyes themselves likewise fits a date in the early part of the third century.
The wide, shallow pupils in which the little ridge that represents the point of light has almost
disappeareddiffer little in their effect from the simple round cup pupils that begin to come into
use a little later in the century.4 The surface of the eyeball is wide and flat, curving strongly
only at the outer corners where a transition to the side plane of the face is necessary, and on
this flat surface the iris is outlined with the sharp, strong, regular incision that is usual in
Greek work of the first half of the third century. It is part of the increasing reliance on line
instead of modelling for the distinctive elements of the composition. The renderingof the short
beard and the mustache begins to be partly linear too, consisting of little curved incisions, into
the skin surface on the chin where the beard is supposed to be very short and into a rougher
chiselled surface that projects slightly beyond the skin plane in places where the beard is meant
to be a little fuller. This is essentially the method that remains in use in Greece throughout the
third century for representingclose-croppedhair, whether of head or beard.5
In other respects the head is still close to the Antonine style: in the finely smoothed surfaces
of the face, the rounded lower eyelids,6 the round, carefully carved ears, and above all the
subtly differentiated hair mass in which each lock is a plastic entity fully expressed by the
chisel and varied in some way from its neighbor. The decline of interest in the drill is evident,
however, in the rather restrained drilling of the hair, which helps to outline the locks and give
them relief, but does not honeycomb the mass. The chisel work is sure and broad, with none
of the delicate chasing on the surface of the locks that one often finds in portraits of the An-
tonine period.7
This is one of the better of the Agora portraits, both in its technical finish and in the charac-
terization of the person portrayed. It would seem to be the product of a conservative atelier
that did good work for a price, keeping up with the main trends of the times, but not innovating.
Stylistically the head represents the transition between the second and third centuries; its
actual date may be as late as the second decade of the third.

1
Shear, A.J.A., XXXIX, 1935, p. 181.
2
Cf. Graindor, Cosmntes,no. 13, p. 334, fig. 18 and no. 14, p. 337, fig. 19, both dated by Graindorto the early years of the
hird century.
8 The fine portrait of Caracallain Berlin, Bltimel, R6mischeBildnisse, R 96, pls. 59-60, has this strongly modelled forehead
tand the plastically projecting eyebrows. The shape of the thin mustache in this portrait is also to be compared to that of
our head. A portrait of Caracallain Corinth, Askew, A.J.A., XXXV, 1931, pp. 442-7, besides being a work of inferior quality,
seems to belong to an earlier type. The hair is longer and contains a great deal of drill work. The face is highly polished and
shows very little modelling or expression. This bearded, but open-faced type of Caracallaoccurs only on coins dated between
A.D. 209 and 213 (B.M.C., Empire, V, pl. 53, 5-7, dated in 209, [these are the first coins to show the beard]; pl. 53, 18-20,
pl. 58, 5-6, A.D. 210). The scowling type begins on coins dated between A. D. 210 and 213 (ibid., pl. 55, 9-14; pl. 61, 1-2).
4 Cf. L'Orange, Studien, p. 11, fig. 12. Also see below, No. 44. A portrait of a kosmetes in the National Museum in Athens,
Graindor, Cosmntes,no. 12, p. 332, fig. 17, is said by Graindorto have the pupil in the form of a simple cup, but this is not
strictly true. Rather, as in the present case, the dividing ridge has been almost obliterated. Graindor dates the kosmetes to
the reign of Septimius Severus.
5 See below, Nos. 44, 45 and 46. Cf. L'Orange, op. cit., p. 12.
8 Compareportraits of Commodus, Wegner, pls. 48-56, and Crispina, ibid., pl. 57.
7
Cf. above, No. 28.
 CATALOGUE 51
38. PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG MAN, A.D. 215-225 Plate 25.
Inv. S 954.FoundJune7, 1937in a welldugthroughthe floorof a cisternto the westof the Tholos(G11).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.32 m., W. 0.22 m., H. chin to crown0.245 m.
Headbrokenoffat baseof neck.Tipof nosemissing.Numerous
blackspeckson left sideof faceandhair.
Surfacein goodcondition.
This is a portrait of a young man wearinga light mustache and with youthful beardon the sides
of his cheeks. His thick, rather curly hair falls low over the forehead in front and low down on
the neck in back. On the sides it half covers the ears, falling in short, tumbled locks on the left
side, but in long corkscrew curls on the right side. The drill is used in places to separate the
locks. The beard on the cheeks too is unsymmetrically treated. On the right side are a few plastic
curls rising above the generallevel, which is renderedin the usual third centuryway by little cur-
ved strokes in a slightly raised rough surface, but there are no such plastic curls on the left side.
The eyebrows are drawn with heavy incised strokes. The eyes are rather flat, with narrowupper
lids and thin lower lids that dip near the outer corners.The pupils arevery shallow,of a cardioid
shape that has nearly merged into a simple cup.' The irises are engraved. Irises and pupils are
placed in such a way that the young man appears slightly cross-eyed. The surface is smoothed
but not polished; here and there traces of imperfectly obliterated rasp marks are visible.
This portrait is reminiscentin a generalway of the portraits of Elagabalus. The thin mustache
and the slightly curly down on the cheeks recall the well-known head in the Capitoline.2The
heavy thatch of hair on the head of our young man is longer and shaggier than that worn by
the young Emperor. We may note, however, a similar disposition of locks over the forehead,
including the change of direction above the center of the right eyebrow. The extra length may
be a matter of local fashion, analogous to that observable among Athenian youth today.
The curious way in which the two halves of the face slope backward from a central ridge
formedby the nose, the projecting upper lip and the chin is reminiscent of such later portraits as
No. 44 below and the related ephebe head in the Athens National Museum (P1. 46, b).3 One
other Athenian portrait shows definite affinities with our head; it is probably to be dated in the
same period. This is Athens National Museum no. 393, the queerest of the kosmetai.4He, like
our young man, looks as though more of his vital energies had gone into the growth of his hair
than into the development of what was underneath it. The hard, linear chisel-work on the
surface of the locks of hair is very similar in the two heads (the way the front hair of the kos-
metes rises in a sort of crest above the forehead finds an analogy in the Agora herm portrait,
No. 39 below). Also to be compared with those of our young man are the cheeks, the eyebrows
drawn with heavy incisions, and the flat eyes with a double curve to the lower lids. The in-
flated upper lids of the kosmetes are no doubt an individual peculiarity, for they find parallels
only among Antonine portraits.
There is no positive clue to the identity of the Agora youth, but his resemblance to types
that one meets on the streets of Athens today makes it easy to believe that he was a native
Athenian. The portrait is individual enough to compel interest in spite of the fact that the
workmanshipis not of the highest quality. One thinks of it first as a personality and only second
as a piece of sculpture.
1 Cf. No. 37 above.
2
Delbriick, Antike Portrats, pl. 51; Paribeni, pl. 299; L'Orange, SymbolaeOsloenses,XX, 1940, p. 155, fig. 2. In the head
in Oslo, ibid., figs. 1, 3, 4, the beard is less curly.
3 Graindor,Cosmates,no. 22, 354,
p. fig. 26; L'Orange, Studien, figs. 20, 22.
4 Graindor, Cosm~tes,no. 27, p. 363, fig. 28; A.B. 389. Noting the similarity of the hair and beard of the kosmetes to that
in the portraits of Antisthenes, Graindor suggests that the kosmetes was a Cynic.
4*
52 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
39. HERM PORTRAITOF A MAN, ca. A.D. 215-225 Plate 26.
Inv. S 887.FoundJune23 and24, 1933in a late Romandepositbreakingthe floorof the largeRoman
buildingnorthof the Templeof Ares(K 7).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.54m., H. chinto crown0.27m., W. of head0.235m., W. of hermshaftca. 0.36 m.,
D. 0.245 m.
Mendedfromfivepieces.Partof the hermshaftpreserved in backandonleft side.Cloakpreserved in back
and overleft shoulder.End of nose and edgeof left ear brokenoff. Brokensurfaceof nose, a partof left
eyebrow,edgesof lips andprojectingpointsof chinandforelockwornas if the headhadlainin the ground
with thesepartsup andhadbeenwalkedon. Surfacewell-preserved in general;weatheredlight tan, with
hereandthere.
smallpatchesof incrustation
Publishedby T. L. Shear,Hesperia,IV, 1985,p. 420,fig.41; A.J.A., XXXVII,1933,p. 548,fig.6B; Art
andArchaeology, XXXIV,1933,p. 288.

This is the upper part of a portrait herm, showing a man of middle age or perhaps a little
younger. The hair is somewhat curly and rather long, with unruly ends coming forward and
framing the face. It is carved principally with the chisel, showing very little drill-work. The
beard and mustache are close-cropped. The beard does not extend down onto the neck or up
onto the lower lip except for a tuft in the center. It is rendered by little curved incisions into
a roughened surface. The pupils of the eyes are hollowed in a cardioid form. The irises are
engraved. The final dressing of the flesh surfaces was done with the rasp.
The subject wears a himation which passes over the left shoulder and around the back of the
neck, apparently leaving the right shoulder free. His head is turned a little toward the right
and tilted slightly upward, in a pose suggestive of energetic alertness. This agrees well with
the impression made by the features themselves, the square jaw, the firm mouth and the deep-
set eyes which gaze intently in the direction in which the head is turned. There is an asymmetry
in the modelling of the two sides of the face which seems to be caused by this turn of the head.
The whole right side of the face, including the eye, is made wider and flatter than the left side.
The effect of this inequality is to make the two sides of the face appear more equal by counter-
acting the natural foreshortening of the part of the face turned away from the spectator. The
herm form and the himation over the left shouldersuggested to the first publisherof the portrait
that this might be one of the portraits of the kosmetai, for many of them had this form. Nothing
in the style or workmanshipor the appearance of the individual himself contradicts this hypo-
thesis, but the herm form was used also for portraits of other types of persons,' and the proven-
ience of the present head is somewhat unlikely for a kosmetes.2
The cut of the beard and mustache as well as the manner of renderingthem by little curved
incisions is similar to that of No. 37, which we dated in the reign of Caracalla.Similar incision
is used also for the eyebrows. The general arrangement of the hair resembles that of No. 37,
though the locks are longer here and not so curly. At first glance the shaggy locks over the
forehead with the chisel-drawn lines on their surfaces recall portraits of Gallienus, but the
beard here does not grow onto the throat, and the shape of the hair mass, which for all its
luxuriance does not extend very far down on the back of the neck, is much closer to the An-
tonine mode than to that of the mid third century. In our portrait the locks on the top and
the back of the head, though they are not finished, are all plastically conceived as separate
units. This would hardly be possible after the Antonine tradition had been broken once and
for all by the third century substitution of lines for modelling.
On the other hand, our head cannot be so early as No. 37. Not only has the drill here been
abandoned almost entirely for modelling or coloring the hair, but the face itself is more ad-
 CATALOGUE 53
vanced in the purely linear emphasis of the features. L'Orange has characterized the Late
Severan style as one in which the surfaces of the face melt into one another without definition
or boundaries.3Our head shows hints of this in the smooth sweeping surface between the nose
and the inner corners of the eyes and in the flat, ribbon-like upper eyelids which remain wide
in spite of the fact that the eyes are represented wide open.4 The rasped finish of the surface
looks like a forerunnerof the later Athenian practice. In Nos. 44 and 45 below, dated around
the middle of the century, a heavy rasp is used and the strokes tend to run all in the same
direction, emphasizing the sweeping continuity of the surfaces. Here the rasp is finer and the
strokes cross one another. The popularity of a rasp-finishedsurface in portraits seems to have
begun in Athens in the first quarter of the third century, if Graindoris correct in his dating
of a kosmetes which has it.5 The manner in which the eyebrows are undercut to emphasize the
deep-set eyes is likewise paralleled in a portrait of a kosmetes, dated by Graindor as early as
the time of Septimius Severus.6 The active, alive appearance of our portrait is in contrast to
the apathetic look of many Late Severan portraits, and is probably another argument for
placing it near the period of Caracalla.As a portraitit is entirely successful,alive, individual, and
almost attractive, as the person himself must have been. Technically it hits a very fair mean,
having all the vividness of the more "impressionistic"portraits of kosmetai without any of the
glaring faults and negligences that they too often betray.
1 Cf. the herm portrait of Moiragenes, No. 25 above.
2
Most of the portraits of kosmetai were found in the "Valerian Wall" east of the Agora, whereas the present head was
found in a late Roman deposit in the northwest part of the Agora.
3
L'Orange, Studien, p. 1.
SThe same contradiction appears in a much exaggerated form in No. 44 below.
5 Graindor, Cosmetes,no. 14, pp. 337f., fig. 19. Graindor compares this with portraits of the period of Septimius Severus
and Caracalla.Probably a date early in the reign of Caracallawould be correct for this portrait which still makes extravagant
use of the drill for hair and beard but has the beard cut rather short. The rasped finish occurs in the second century in large
coarse sculpture used for the adornment of buildings, e.g. the "captives" from the Fagade of the ColossalFigures at Corinth,
Richardson, A.J.A., VI, 1902, pl. 2 (the rasping is not visible in the photographs in Johnson, Corinth,IX, pp. 101ff.), and the
giants from the Odeion in Athens, Thompson, Hesperia, XIX, 1950, pls. 67 d, 70 a. The early Antonine portraits from the
Nymphaion of Herodes Atticus at Olympia show a finer rasped surface (cf. Wegner, pl. 39) as does a portrait of Lucius
Verus (?) in the Athens National Museum, no. 1961.
6
Graindor, Cosmdtes,no. 12, p. 332, fig. 17.

40. FRAGMENTARY OFA PRIEST(?),

PORTRAIT SECONDQUARTER-OF
THIRD CENTURY Plate 27.
Inv. S 1134.FoundMarch31, 1939in a mixedlate depositwestof the "Valerian
Wall"nearthe Churchof
Hypapanti(R 21).
Pentelic marble.Pres. H. 0.14 m., Pres. W. 0.155 m., Pres. D. 0.065 m.
Fragmentpreservesonly foreheadand front hair,with a short sectionof wreath,both eyebrows,all of right
eye andtwo-thirdsof upperlid of left eye. Somewhat
weatheredandworn.
The fragment shows a man wearing on his head a wreath of small leaves. The eyes are so
large as to suggest that the whole head was a little over life-size. They are carved with heavy
incision and sharp edges. The upper eyelids are thick and curve much more than do the lower
lids. The iris, which leaves considerable space between its outline and the lower lid, is two-
thirds of a circle. The pupil is a deeply cut cardioid with strongly marked point. The eyebrows
are plastically rendered,the hairs being engraved with short strokes into a surface that projects
beyond the surrounding flesh areas. The projecting lower part of the foreheadis separated from
the upper part by a horizontal groove. The hair, which is brushed onto the forehead in pointed
54 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
locks with crescent ends, is engraved in thin, shallow lines; only here and there do rough drill-
channels separate the locks. The small, stiff leaves of the wreath are flatly carved. The flesh
surfaces are smoothed. The workmanshipis good, but not remarkable.
Though this piece is much too fragmentary to date with any precision, the rather flat, linear
hair brushed onto the forehead in crescent locks and the eye with its heavy upper lid and deeply
engraved details suggest a date in the third century. A fragment of a head from the Kerameikos
wearing a double wreath of leaves shows similarly deep cutting in the carving of the eyes.' This
piece is dated on the basis of the scale-like rendering of the short hair to ca. A.D. 230-240 and
has a coarse rasped surface similar to that of our Nos. 44, 45, and 46.
1 Riemann, Kerameikos,II, no. 120, p. 90, pl. 28.

41. PORTRAIT OF A LITTLE BOY, SECOND QUARTER OF THIRD CENTURY Plate 28.
Inv. S 1307.FoundSeptember17, 1947in destructiondebrisbelowthe hypocaustroomof a Romanbath
at thewestfootof theAreopagus
(C18),togetherwithpotterypre-datingthe Herulian
destruction
of A.D.267.
Pentelic marble.H. 0.25 m., W. 0.17 m., H. chin to crown(minuswreath)0.19 m.
Headbrokenoffat baseof neck.Nosebrokenoff.Eyebrows,eyes,lipsandchinchipped.Surfaceon entire
frontpartof headand neckgranularanderoded,perhapsas the resultof burning.Surfaceon backbetter
preserved.
Publishedby H. A. Thompson,
Hesperia,XVII,1948,p. 179,pl. 58.
This life-sized portrait shows a little boy wearing on his head a wreath of small, formal leaves
stiffly ranged in pairs. His hair is cut short all over except for a single wavy lock about 11 cm.
long which falls from the crown down the back of his head. The short hair is renderedby little
curved incisions. The pupils of the eyes are drilled, but their shape is no longer discernible. The
flesh surfaces seem to have been smoothed in front, though rasp marks remain on the back of
the neck.
The renderingof the hair by little curved incisions suggests that our head is not to be dated
earlier than the second quarter of the third century. The smoothly rounded outlines of the face
and its relaxed expression, on the other hand, suggest that it is no later than the middle of the
century. The overshadowingeyebrows and heavy upper lids shown by a little boy's head from
the Agora which we date in the time of Gallienus' are lacking here. With the surface damaged
as it is, it is hard to tell just where the head belongs within the quarter-century to which we
have assigned it, but the hair line, in so far as it is visible, is like that of Alexander Severus,2
and in spirit the head seems closer to the portraits of the Late Severan period than to the
tenser faces of the forties.3
The outlines of the round, childish face are pleasing, and this was originally no doubt a very
attractive portrait, but the damage to the surface prevents us from evaluating its artistic merit
too closely. It is the curious coiffure,together with the wreath, that gives this head its particular
interest. The scalp-lock apparently illustrates the ancient practice of growing a special lock for
dedication to some river or divinity.4 Pollux says that such locks were worn either on the side
or in back or over the forehead.5 Of two similar portraits of little boys found at Eleusis, one
wears a lock on the right side,6 the other has just had his lock cut off, and the stubble that has
been left where it was cut off shows its position, over the forehead.' These Eleusinian children,
which are linked with the Agora portrait by their age and the locks and the wreaths which they
also wear, have been identified by Kourouniotes as boys initiated from childhood into the
 CATALOGUE 55

mysteries:,raiCSES ,a-rias
&cp' .iUi SVTEs, a class the existence of which is attested by a number
of inscriptions.8The Agora has produced three possible examples. Besides the one under dis-
cussion there is one other with the wreath and with a lock on the back of his head (No. 42) and
one wearing a wreath but with the back of his head broken off so that one cannot be sure
whether or not he had the lock also (No. 46). It is not clear why the portraits of these children
were found in and near the Agora. Perhaps the self-glorificationof the noble families to which
they belonged extended to setting up in Athens itself duplicates of the portraits that were set
up in Eleusis or possibly these are left-overs from the sculptors' workshopswhich were located
in the vicinity.
1 Below, No. 46.
2
I.e., the forehead hair above the right eye is brushed toward the right and down to join the side hair. Cf. the portrait of
Alexander Severus in the Vatican, L'Orange, Studien, fig. 1, and the youthful portraits (often misnamed Philip the Younger)
discussed ibid., pp. 94f.
3 A portrait bust of a little boy in the Conservatori, Stuart Jones, Catalogue,II, pl. 84, Mon. are. 32, shows the extent to
which even a child's face may be affected by the tense, "realistic" style of the forties. This little boy has a long "Horus lock"
over his right ear.
4 H. A. Thompson, Hesperia, XVII, 1948, p. 179.
5 "E-rppEpov i 9Wayiou
6 'rIV K K6lpnv KaTr6rtIV~i rrip T-6 pi-rcorov 1 ESOTK= cVOb1vo~E ,o oXp6~ i oKi67Muv
aoelpd&rplX v. (B 30)"x "rroTrapoTS 'o
6
AE-rfov, VIII, 1923, p. 155, fig. 1.
7
Ibid., p. 160, fig. 4.
8 Ibid., p. 161. Portraits of Roman children with locks on the right side of the head, the so-called "Horus locks", are not
infrequent, especially in the third century (typical examples in the Conservatori,see above, note 3, and in the British Museum,
Smith, Catalogue,III, p. 172, no. 1935, pl. 6). The fact that our Athenian examples of the lock likewise belong to the third
century suggests some connection between the Roman and Greek practices. The identification of Isis with Demeter was a
common one, and it is not impossible that something originally connected with Horus should have been adopted into the
Eleusinian practice.

42. PORTRAIT OF A LITTLE BOY, SECOND QUARTER OF THIRD CENTURY Plate 27.
2, 1933builtinto a modernhousenearthe Tholos(G12).
Inv. S 403.FoundNovember
Pentelic marble.H. 0.23 m., W. 0.185 m., H. chin to crown0.21 m.
Headbrokenoff at neck.A hole(dowelhole?) 0.014m. deepand0.009m. in diameteron the underside.
Left sideof face,mostof noseandwholemouthandchinsplitoff.A largechipmissingfromtop of headin
front,so that hairlineovercenterof foreheadis not preserved.Earsbrokenoff.Wreathchipped;its surface
wornaway except for a bit in back on right side. Scalplock also chippedand worn.
This is the portrait of an even younger child than the one representedin No. 41 above. He
wears a wreath of small leaves ranged in parallel sets of three, and he has a long scalp-lock on
the back of the head.' The hair is short, though not so short as in No. 41 above. The strokes that
indicate the locks are about 11 cm. long and are often S-shaped or placed so that the movement
from one to the other is S-shaped. The hairline over the forehead may have been oval or it may
have been like that of Alexander Severus.2There are the same pointed locks in front of the ears
that we have in No. 41 above and in No. 46 below. Behind the ears the back hair is brushed
forward on either side and the parting is concealed by the scalp-lock, which is long and flowing,
coming down over the wreath and swept toward the right side of the head.
The forehead is smooth and flat, and the eyebrows do not overhang the eyes. The eyes are
flat, with thin eyelids crisply cut. The cardioid pupil is large and unusually deep. The outline
of the iris is engraved. The cheeks are very smooth and round. The skin surface is smoothed,
though rasp marks remain on the neck and under the chin.
This head looks very much as though it were a cruder product of the same workshopwhich
produced one of the kosmetai.3Most striking is the similarity in the carving of the flat eyes with
56 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
their thin, narrowlids, so sharply outlined, their elliptical iris lines and the flattened cyma recta
profile of the part between the eyebrow and the eye. Also similar are the concave temples, the
smooth flesh and the fluid renderingof the hair (delicately executed in the case of the kosmetes,
more coarsely in the boy's head). The kosmetes has hitherto been dated in the reign of Gallienus,
but a date in the time of Alexander Severus or soon after seems more likely.4 A similar date
would be appropriatefor our portrait.
1 For the significance of the wreath and lock see above under No. 41.
2 See above, No. 41, note 2.
8 L'Orange, Studien, p. 13, cat. no. 10, figs. 24, 28; Graindor, Cosmetes,no. 25, p. 360, pl. 23; Rodenwaldt, Jahrb., XLV,
1930, p. 135, fig. 14.
4 A portrait of Alexander Severus in Cairo, Graindor, Bustes et statues-portraitsd'Agypte romaine, no. 19, p. 62, pl. 18,
shows similar long incisions in the hair.

43. PORTRAIT OF A PRIEST (?), ca. A.D. 235-245 Plate 30.

Inv. S 564. Found May 2, 1935in a mixed depositwith Turkishsherdsover the Odeion(M10).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.235 m., W. 0.185 m., H. chin to crown0.23 m.
Headbrokenoffin middleof neck.Tipof noseandbackedgesof earsbrokenoff.A chipgonefromright
sideof chin.Eyebrowschippedin places.Surfacein goodcondition.
Publishedby T. L. Shear,A.J.A., XXXIX, 1935,p. 447,fig.11.
This is a portrait head of a man of middle age or over. There is no evidence as to the original
form of the portrait. The man is clean-shaven and wears a laurel wreath. There is no indication
of hair. Either it was painted only, which seems unlikely, or the man was entirely bald. The
leaves of the laurel wreath are carved out only as far back as the tops of the ears, and the top
of the head is smoothed only to about this point. Evidently the head was intended to be viewed
only from in front. If we assume that the hair was painted or - another remote possibility -
that the head is still unfinished and that both hair and beard were intended to be indicated by
engraved lines in the already smoothed surfaces, it seems strange that there is no offset or rise
in the surface on the sides below the wreath to show where the hair area begins. The eyebrows
have a strong plastic projection beyond the plane of the forehead. The eyes are deep-set but
quite flat, with narrow, thin lids. The pupils are small cups set very close under the upper lids.
The irises are U-shaped, engraved with a sharp clear line. The surface of the skin is smoothed.
Since it wears a laurel wreath, our head should be the portrait either of an emperor or of a
priest. Against its being an emperor,besides the baldness, is the fact that it does not really look
like any emperor of whom we have a portrait preserved.' The rather fine, sharp treatment of
the lines in the face, such as the diagonal wrinkles beside the nose and the wrinkles at the outer
cornersof the eyes is best paralleledin portraits of MaximinusThrax2and may suggest that our
portrait should come early rather than late within the period of realistic portraiture that
extends from Maximinus to Decius. The eyes with the wide iris and the small pupil close under
the upper lid recall those of Philip the Arabian.3In the worried expression and the pattern of
lines in the face there is some resemblanceto portraits of Decius.4
The striking thing about this portrait is that, though found in Athens and made of Pentelic
marble, it is done in the western, properly Roman style of this period rather than in the con-
servative modificationof it that seems to have been currentin Greece.5The taut expressiveness
of the features, the asymmetry of the lines (especially in the forehead), and the concentration
of all the expression and all the tension, which are here the main structural elements, into the
 CATALOGUE 57
front surface of the face make the head closer to portraits of the Soldier Emperorsthan it is to
the standard contemporary products of the Athenian workshops. A comparison of the side
view with the front view of the head shows how completely everything has been transferredto
the front plane. The front view is full of life and expression,while the side of the face has become
a wide, blank expanse in which nothing happens whatsoever.
If our head were the portrait of an emperor we might explain its Roman quality on the
grounds that it was copied in Athens from a model that originated in Rome. The objections
to this are, first, that our portrait does not look like any emperor of this period and, second,
that it looks somehow too individual to be merely a hack copy from a standardizedmodel. The
second possibility would be that it is a portrait made in Athens of an Athenian priest but by an
artist trained in Rome. A third would be that some of the Athenian sculptors actually followed
the Roman style more closely in this period than did the majority of those whose works we
have preserved in the kosmetai portraits and others in the Athens National Museum. At
present, we seem to have no other Athenian examples of this style, but it is not impossible that
others will turn up in time. Whatever the explanation may be, our head is a highly expressive
portrait, much superiorin quality to most of its Athenian contemporaries.
1 T. L. Shear, A.J.A., XXXIX, 1935, p. 447, has suggested that our portrait resembles coin-portraits of Valerian I. The
difficulty is that Valerian's coins show a fat person, while this man's face is thin.
2 E.g. the bust in the
Capitoline, Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 291 a; Jones, Catalogue,I, Stanza degli Imperatori, no. 62,
pl. 49; and a fragment in the Terme Magazine, L'Orange, Studien, fig. 4.
3 E.g. the portrait bust in the Vatican, Hekler, op. cit., pl. 293.
SE.g. a bust in the Capitoline, L'Orange, op. cit., fig. 2; Jones, Catalogue,I, Stanza degli Imperatori, no. 70, pl. 51.
s Various Athenian portraits of the period do emulate the Roman style, but never, to my knowledge, with such complete
success as we find in the present Agora portrait. A kosmetes whose general scheme seems inspired by classical philosopher
types (Graindor, Cosmetes,no. 19, p. 348, fig. 23) aims at the two-dimensional treatment, but the result for him is a broad,
flabby face that looks merely flattened, not concentrated. Graindor dates this head at the end of the reign of Alexander
Severus, but it may actually be a bit later. The shape of the eyes and the wrinkles at their outer corners again recall the
portraits of Maximinus Thrax (see above, note 2) as do the long horizontal wrinkles in the forehead. The side view of this
kosmetes with his large ungainly ears was evidently not meant to be seen. Another head in the Athens National Museum
attempts the asymmetry of the Roman style, with what ill-success L'Orange has pointed out (op. cit., p. 10, fig. 19).

44. PORTRAIT OF A MAN, ca. A.D. 245-255 Plate 80.

Inv. S 580. FoundMay 24, 1935in a medievalwall in the southernpart of the Agoraarea (H 14).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.272 m., W. 0.20 m., H. chin to crown0.262 m.
Head brokenoffjust below chin. Nose and helicesof earsbrokenoff. Surfacevery little weathered.
Publishedby T. L. Shear,A.J.A.,XXXIX, 1935,p. 447,fig.10.

This is the portrait of a middle-aged man with thinning, close-croppedhair, a straggly beard,
mustache and sideburns. The hair recedes above the temples at the sides, and where it recedes
the surface is indented, giving the skull a strange, lumpy appearance.' The texture of the hair
is indicated by little curved incisions in a slightly rough surface, radiating from a spot on the
crown and running in the directionsin which the hair is supposed to be growing. In some places
two little incisions converge to a point so as to define a short pointed lock, but not in every case
are they so carefully drawn. The straggly beard is rendered by longer chiselled lines. The face
is long and thin, almost gaunt, but entirely without wrinkles or furrowsexcept for three sharply
engraved lines across the forehead. The eyes are wide open, but with wide upper lids arched
above them. The upper lids are undercut to emphasize their contours, and sharp engraved
lines separate them from the under sides of the eyebrows. The pupils are shallow circularcups;
58 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
the outlines of the iris are sharply engraved. The surface of the face is covered by heavy rasp
marks, the strokes running mostly in one direction.
This portrait of an older man shows a striking resemblance to a youthful portrait from the
"Valerian Wall," presumably that of an ephebe (P1. 46,b).2 The resemblance suggests that
perhaps the present head has the best claim of any of the Agora portraits to be a kosmetes, for
it almost certainly comes from the same workshop as the ephebe. In both of these heads the
upper eyelids are wide, flat ribbons which do not taper to the corners of the eyes, but melt into
the surroundingflesh. In both the pupils are shallow cups, and the outlines of the iris and the
eyelids are sharply incised lines. In both the lips protrude and are slightly parted, adding to the
look of slackness that pervades the whole. The rasp, a relatively coarse one in this case, is used
in broad sweeps in one direction, just as it is used on the ephebe and on a sarcophagusportrait
in Athens convincingly comparedwith the latter by L'Orange.3 The sarcophagushead also has
the beard cut in the same way, with long, wispy sideburnsand thin mustache, the lower lip and
part of the chin bare, and only a few ends of the beard extending down onto the neck.
It may be that some of the similaritiesbetween ourhead and that of the ephebe, e. g. the peculiar
shape of the head, the prominent cleft chin and the dull expression, go beyond mere identity
of style and point to a family connection between the two persons portrayed. There are several
instances attested by inscriptions in which the son of a kosmetes held a prominent place in the
class of ephebes over which his father presided,4and it is not impossible that we have such a
pair before us. We have no actual evidence as to whether or not our portrait comes from a
herm,5 though a marked asymmetry in the carving of the eyes, the left eye being wider open
than the right and with a greater convexity in the eyeball, may again indicate a slight turn of
the head to the right, such as we had in the herm portrait No. 39 above. The hairline at the
back of the neck is left in a roughly chiselled state, suggesting that it may have been masked by
a cloak which passed around the back of the neck.
The head of the ephebe was dated by L'Orangein the Late Severan period,6but its resem-
blance to the present portrait now makes it clear that it is later. The eyes of the Agora head
with their wide lids and emphasized contours seem to belong to the time of Decius. The coarse
forehead wrinkles, ruthlessly carved into the flesh, and the equally coarse rendering of the
eyebrows, hair and beard find their best parallels in the same period. The type of the long,
narrow face with its doleful expression and parted lips is rather like that of the philosopher,
often called "Plotinus," on a sarcophagus in the Lateran which Rodenwaldt dated as late as
265-270.7 The Agora portrait can scarcely be so late, however. If the sarcophagusis really late
Gallienian,the philosopher'sface, like his hair style, must be somewhat old-fashioned.
In this head from the Agora the dissolution of forms that has been noted in Roman portraits
of the period of Deciuss is particularly obvious, because this portrait is so simple that there is
little to distract one's attention from the fact. The portrait seems to be melting before our eyes,
and we wonder what direction the development of the style can take from here. Actually, it
seems to have taken two directions, for we find in the ensuing period works of widely divergent
characterbut all showing some relation to the style we are now considering.In the larger group,
which continues to follow the phases of urban Roman style, we find a new tension introduced;
the frowns grow deeper, the eyes bulge, and the heads look solider, more compact. A portrait of
a kosmetes which may be taken as typical of this trend9shows by its close relation to the portrait
of the ephebe how the one develops out of the other. On the other hand the blankness and
simplificationvisible in the Agora portrait find continuation in a number of Athenian portraits
 CATALOGUE 59
done in a drier style, in which symmetry and an almost geometrical austerity of design provide
the basis for the composition.'0Thus we find the threat of disintegration countered in one of
two ways: either by an intensification of the expression of the portrait or by a new emphasis on
its purely formal aspects. In neither case is there a recovery of what has been lost in the render-
ing of the organic structure of the head. Our portrait, which seems to stand at the fork from
which this dual development branches off, acquires because of this position an interest that its
mediocre technique and vague characterizationwould not warrant.
1 That the lumps are in the skull and are not merely caused by the presence or absence of hair is shown by the fact that the
head of an ephebe in the National Museum in Athens (P1. 46, b; Graindor, Cosmites, no. 22, p. 354, fig. 26; L'Orange, Stu-
dien, figs. 20, 22) has the same lumps.
2 See above, note 1.
3 Studien,
p. 12, figs. 21, 23; Rodenwaldt, Jahrb., XLV, 1930, p. 128, fig. 8 and p. 135, fig. 13.
4 E.g. Graindor, Cosmetes,p. 253 (Eirenaios), pp. 258f. (Aurelius Dositheos), and I.G., II2, 2193 (Tryphon).
5 The majority of the stone portraits of kosmetai seem to have been in the form of herms, though there is evidence for the
existence of full-length statues in some cases: in 1. G., 112, 1041 line 33 (first century B.C.) mention is made of the &vSpl&s
of a kosmetes.
6 Studien, p. 12.
7 Jahrb., LI, 1936, p. 104, fig. 10, pl. 6.
8 L'Orange, Studien, p. 4. See below, pp. 96-97.
* Graindor,
Cosmdtes,no. 24, p. 358, fig. 27; L'Orange, Studien, cat. no. 3, figs. 13, 15. Graindor'soriginal date, in the time
of Trebonianus Gallus, must be approximately correct.
10 See below No. 51 and pp. 99-100.

45. PORTRAIT OF A MAN, ca. A.D. 250-260 Plate 29.

Inv. 8 435.FoundMarch6, 1934in a mixedlateRomanandHellenisticdepositeastof the GreatDrainon
the westsideof the Agoraarea(E 15).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.315m., W. 0.195m., H. chin to crown0.245 m.
Headbrokenoffat baseof neck.Bothearsbatteredoff;nosebrokenoff.Thestronglyprojecting
lowerpart
of foreheadas wellas eyebrows,cheeks,lipsandchinmuchwornandbattered.
The head portrays a young man with heavy, seemingly negroid features. Both hair and beard
are close-cropped, and the mustache apparently so. The short hair and beard are renderedby
curved incisions into a roughenedsurface. The beard leaves free the lower lip, except for a tuft
in the center, and a space on either side of the mouth. It continues down on the neck for about
1 cm. below the chin. On the forehead the hairline comes down very low, and the lower half of
the forehead juts out heavily over the eyes. Before the eyebrows were battered off this projec-
tion must have looked even more remarkable than it does now. The eyes, small and glaring
sullenly out from under heavy lids, must originally have been deeply overshadowed by the
eyebrows. The engraved semi-circle of the iris is narrow and leaves a wide space between the
iris and the under lid. The small cardioid pupil is deeply cut. Although they are set back deep
behind the overhangingledge of the brows above them, the eyeballs and the lower lids project
forward beyond the plane of the cheeks below. The nose is too much broken away to show
what its shape was except that it was relatively short. The mouth is straight, and looks stiff; it
is channelled along the opening line so that the lips appear slightly parted.
In its present state the head has a distinctly negroid look, resulting not only from the ape-like
brow, the small eyes and the short nose, but also from the heavy, compact structure of the face
and the shape of the head. The lips do not look particularlythick, but they are so damagedthat
it is hard to be sure about this. The hair, indicated by the usual little curved chisel strokes in a
rough surface, does not seem unusually curly (note particularly the ends over the forehead,
60 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
which curve all in the same direction), but the beard has the little strokes so arrangedthat they
change direction, forming S-curves, and actually do give an effect of curliness. If the person
portrayed was a negro, the question of his identify becomes more intriguing but remains un-
solved. Perhaps he was an athlete. His comparative youth and the dull, heavy features would
fit such an identification, but there is no real evidence for it.
Both the cut of the beard and the style of the sculpture suggest a date somewhat later than
that of the precedingportrait. The beard covers more of the surface of the face, and the features
are massed together so that the face seems solidified if one compares it which that of No. 44.
The flesh surface is no more articulated than it was; even the rasping remainsthe same (though
done with an unusually coarse rasp in the present instance), but the beard and the features
have closed in on this surface so that it is tightly bounded, no longer a wide, fluid expanse. In
this our portrait resembles the portrait of a kosmetes that probably belongs to the period of
Trebonianus Gallus.' The kosmetes is compared by L'Orange to the male portrait on the
Achilles sarcophagusin the Capitoline Museum,2 and in other respects it is so like the ephebe
head with which we compared the preceding portrait3 that it may very well be a somewhat
later product of the same workshop.4It is not impossible that our present head is from the
same source. The slightly overhangingposition of the eyes occurs in other Greek portraits that
belong around the middle of the third century.5
Our portrait is a work of medium low quality so far as technique is concerned, but highly
individual in its characterizationand almost impressive in its uncompromisingugliness.
1
Graindor, Cosmetes,no. 24, p. 358, fig. 27; L'Orange, Studien, cat. no. 3, figs. 13, 15.
2
Studien, pp. 9f., cat. no. 2, figs. 12, 14.
3 See above, p. 59, note 1.
4 These two are at present side by side in the basement storeroom of the National Museum and show thus placed a much
closer resemblance than is apparent from the photographs. The shape of the chins is almost identical.
5 See below, Nos. 46, 48 and 49; also P1. 46, d.

46. PORTRAIT OF A LITTLE BOY, THIRD QUARTER OF THE THIRD CENTURY Plate 29.
Inv. S 1312.FoundMarch12, 1948builtinto the wall of a modernpit just westof the west endof the
MiddleStoa(H 13).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.205m., W. 0.15 m., H. chin to crown0.20 m.
Headbrokenoffat neck.Nosebrokenoff;left cheek,earsandchinchipped.A slicebrokenofffromback
of headstartinga littleabovehairlineon napeof neckandextendingalmostto crown.
Publishedby H. A. Thompson, Hesperia,XVIII,1949,p. 220,pl. 43, 2.
This is a life-sized portrait of a young boy wearing on his head a wreath of tiny, close-packed
leaves. His hair is cut quite short on all the preserved parts of the head, but since a piece of the
back of the head is missing, it is not impossible that he wore a longer scalp-lock in back similar
to that worn by No. 41 above.' The hairline over the forehead is oval, with a little crescent
lock in front of the ear on each side. Little curved chisel strokes are used to represent the hair.
They are rather fine and careful in front, below the wreath, rougher on top of the head and
quite crude in back. The eyebrows are not modelled. Short incised strokes across the edges of
the eyebrow arches indicate the hairs. The upper eyelids project strongly, overshadowing the
eyes. The eyeballs are set in an overhanging position and the outer corners of the eyes are set
lower than the inner corners,so that the two eyes are not quite on the same axis. The pupils are
deeply cut cardioids and the sharply engraved iris lines surround them with a narrow border.
 CATALOGUE 61
The mouth is unusually small and is unsymmetricalin shape, with thin lips slightly parted. The
face in general shows little modelling. The forehead is smooth and flat, without the roundness
of a young child's forehead. The neck is a simple cylinder which intersects abruptly the simple
curved planes of the face. There is no intimation of the existence of a jawbone. The surface of
the face is rasped all over in long, parallel strokes.
For all his youth, this little boy wears the same world-weary expression as do his older con-
temporaries. A dating is suggested by the striking similarity that exists, despite the difference
in the ages of the persons portrayed, between this head and the portrait of a middle-aged man
in the National Museum in Athens.2 The slack, small mouths with the lower lips projecting
in a thin edge are particularlyalike in the two heads. Also similar are the overhanging eyes, the
flat eyebrow arches and the shape of the face. The National Museum portrait belongs to the
period of Gallienus, and our little boy, though a less distinguished piece of work, is doubtless
to be dated in the same period.
1 For the significance of these locks see above, No. 41.
2
N.M. no. 349, L'Orange, Studien, cat. no. 11, figs. 26, 27. A family connection between the man and the child seems not
unlikely if we bear in mind that the wreath and strophion which the man wears in a replica of this portrait (P1.46, d;
L'Orange, op. cit., cat. no. 12, figs. 25, 29) are thought to be the insignia of the high priest of the imperial cult (see below,
No. 49) who apparently was always a member of the genos of the Kerykes (Oliver, The Athenian Expounders, p. 98) and that
the r-iiSs
Edp' ufnSjrivEs were generally offspring of the Eleusinian priestly families (e.g. I.G., II2, 3688, Publia Aelia
olTra-;
Herennia, whose great-uncle was the dadouchos P. Aelius Dionysios; 3693, Claudia Themistokleia, daughter of the
dadouchos C1.Philippos; 3708, P. Aelius Timosthenes, son of a pythochrestes; 3710, Onoratiane Polycharmis, daughter of
Claudia Themistokleia; and 3679, Junia Themistokleia, daughter of Onoratiane Polycharmis.

47. PORTRAIT OF A YOUTH, THIRD CENTURY (?) Plate 28.

Inv. S 1135.FoundMarch81, 1939in a late Romandepositbesidea moderncess-poolon the northeast
slopeof the Areopagus
(R 24).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.233 m., W. 0.155 m., H. chin to crown0.19 m.
Headbrokenoffat baseof neck.Noseandbacksof earsbrokenoff.Wholesurface,exceptforpartof right
cheekandtempleandsomeof the adjoininghair,pittedandeatenawayby acidsfromthecess-pool.
This head, slightly under life-size, is of a completely classical, idealized aspect, but the scalp-
lock on the back of the head suggests that it is actually a portrait. The short curly hair carved
in separate little flat curls all over the head, seems to imitate early classical bronze work in the
engraved interior drawing of the locks.' The single snaky scalp-lock stands out in relief against
the flat curls on the back of the head. The features are calm and expressionless,the planes of the
face simplified in the classical manner. It is impossible to tell whether or not the pupils of the
eyes were drilled, though the acid has eaten in such a way that they give that impression. The
skin surface was carefully smoothed.
The second quarter of the third century furnishes several examples of highly classicized
portraits. Two portraits of kosmetai,2one of which (G 20) is dated to the year 238/9,3are patent
imitations of classical philosopher types, and a portrait of an ephebe in Copenhagen mas-
querades as a Myronian athlete.4 Hence it is possible that our head may be a product of the
same trend. The fact that he wears the lock may count as additional, though slight, evidence for
placing the head in the third century. Since this boy is older than those representedin Nos. 41
and 42 and wears no wreath, his lock may not have exactly the same significanceas theirs, but
it doubtless belongs to the general category of locks grown for dedication to some divinity.5 Any
dating of the head in its present state must remain purely tentative. That this is a classicizing
62 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
work is obvious, but the workmanship is less coarse than that of any of the third century
parallels cited above, and, so long as we do not know that the pupils were drilled, it is not even
certain that the head belongs to the Roman period.
1 Cf. the head of the Diskobolos of Myron, Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks,fig. 582.
2 Graindor, Cosmntes,no. 20,
p. 349, fig. 24 and no. 21, p. 353, pl. 21.
s J. Notopoulos, Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, p. 40, fixes in 238/9 the archonship of Kasianos Hierokeryx, dated by Graindor
either to 238/9 or 242/3.
4 Poulsen, KunstmuseetsAarskrift, 1929-31, pp. 16 f., figs. 1-2; Tillaeg til Billedtavler,I, pl. 8, no. 469 b; A. W. Lawrence,
Classical Sculpture, pp. 389f., pl. 155a.
1 See above, pp. 54-55.

48. PORTRAITOF A MAN, PERIOD OF GALLIENUS (A.D. 253-268) Plate 31.

Inv. S 950.FoundJune3, 1987in a welldugthroughthefloorof a cisternto thewest of the Tholos(G11).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.265m., W.0.22m., H. chinto crown0.25m.
Headbrokenoffat neck.Endof nosebrokenoff andbackedgeof left earsplinteredaway.Topof heada
littleworn,but not so muchas to removeoutlinesof locksof hair.Blackenedby burningunderchinandon
backof head.A crackrunningdownleft sideof face.

This is the portrait of a man of undeterminedage with a short beard and curly hair of medium
length. The beard leaves no space bare within the area that it encloses, and mustache and beard
are scarcely distinguishedfrom one another. Rather straight vertical strokes in a slightly raised
surface give the effect of a stiff, straight beard cut to a length of about one centimeter all over.
It overlaps a little way onto the neck. The outlines of the locks of hair, which curl in crescent or
comma shapes all over the head, are coarsely cut with the drill out of the flat, cap-like mass that
covers the head. The inner drawing of the locks, done with the chisel, is equally coarse.
The eyebrows are flat arches with the hairs indicated by coarse horizontal incisions along the
edge. The eyes are long, narrow and flat, with heavy upper lids. The pupils are cardioid and
fairly small; the outlines of the irises are carelessly engraved. The face shows little modelling.
The forehead has none except for a very shallow horizontal groove separating the upper part
from the lower. The mouth is small, set into the wide bearded area with little structural relation
to the face. The flesh surfaces are smoothed, but not polished.
The head was found in a well deposit which accumulated following the sack of the area by the
Heruli in A.D. 267,1 and the marks of burning strengthen the supposition that the portrait was
destroyed at that time. The otherwise fresh and unweathered condition of the marble suggests
that the portrait was still fairly new when the destruction occurred. The style of the head is in
agreement with this evidence. The long flat eyes recur in portraits of Gallienus,2and the heavy
upper lids find parallels in other Athenian portraits of his time.3 The longish hair, growing
rather low on the back of the neck, conforms to the Gallienianmode, though the all-over short
beard, while worn by both the preceding and the succeeding emperors, was not worn by
Gallienushimself. The coarse outlining of the locks with the drill in our head closely resembles
that on two portraits of kosmetai, one of which is epigraphicallydated to A.D. 238/9.4 Here as
there it is doubtless an extension to portrait sculpture of a technique used in cheap copies and
imitations of classical sculpture and in the carving of relief sarcophagi.
This portrait lacks the dramatic intensity of better works of its time.5 Instead of etching the
man's face with furrows of passionate anxiety, the spirit of the precarious times in which he
lived has merely cast over his flat features a dim veil of melancholy. How much of the flatness
 CATALOGUE 63
is a matter of style and how much merely mediocre workmanshipis difficult to say. Doubtless
both played a part. Certainly the work is rather crude. The large amorphous ears show this
particularly. It seems probable, however, that an eastern influence which seems to have begun
to touch Athens around the middle of the third century is at least partly responsible for the
calm flat symmetry of this head.6 A small portrait head in Amsterdam, originatingin all likeli-
hood from Egypt, offers a very good parallel for the coiffure of our portrait with its flat curled
locks forming an oval hairline over the forehead.' The wide staring eyes of the Amsterdamhead
with their crescent pupils give it a much more oriental look than we find in the Agora portrait,
but there is enough general similarity between the two to call attention to a distinctly oriental
flavor in the Athenian work. Ponger dates the Amsterdamportrait A.D. 260-270.
1 H. A.
Thompson, The Tholos of Athens and its Predecessors,Hesperia, Supplement IV, p. 101.
2 Cf. L'Orange, Studien, figs. 8, 9; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 298.
8 Cf. No. 46 above and P1. 46, d.
SGraindor, Cosm&tes, no. 20, p. 349, fig. 24 and no. 21, p. 353, pl. 21. For the most recent dating see Notopoulos, Hesperia,
XVIII, 1949, p. 40.
5 Contrast it, for example, with No. 49 below and with its better
preserved replica in Eleusis (P1.46, e).
6 See
below, pp. 66-67.
I C.S.
Ponger, Katalog der griechischenund ramischenSkulptur, der steinernenGegenstandeund der Stuckplastikim Allard
Pierson Museum zu Amsterdam(Allard Pierson Stichting, Bijdragen, XI), no. 125, pp. 62f., pls. 30-31. Since the head formed
part of the Von Bissing collection, there is every probability that it came from Egypt (ibid., p. 63, note 5).

49. PORTRAIT OF A PRIEST, PERIOD OF GALLIENUS Plate 31.

Inv. S 659.FoundMarch14, 1936in looseearthcontainingmixedlate RomanandTurkishsherdsin front
of the Stoaof Attalos(P 7).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.315 m., W. 0.185m., H. chinto crown(minuswreath)0.26 m.
Backof headbrokenawayfromjust in frontof ears;face,frontpartof hair,andcenterfrontpartof fillet
andwreathpreserved.End of nosebrokenoff; eyebrowsandeyes chipped.Wholesurfacedarkenedby fire
andmuchweathered.
The portrait shows an old man wearing a short beard; his hair falls in pointed locks over his
forehead. On his head is a rolled fillet or strophion, above which he wears a wreath. The leaves
are too poorly preserved to be identified as to kind. His eyes are wide and staring, unsymme-
trical both in shape and in position, and his brow is contracted into unsymmetrical furrows.The
cheeks are sunken, with deep diagonal folds running below them from the sides of the nose
downward.Though the intensity of the expression has been somewhat dimmed by the damage
to the surface, particularly that of the eyeballs, it remains extraordinary. The pupils were not
drilled, but engraved in a crescent form. The outlines of the irises are engraved.
This is a replica of a better preserved portrait which was found in the sanctuary at Eleusis
and is now in the Eleusis Museum(P1.46,e).' The Eleusis head has one pointed lock fewer on the
forehead than has the Agora head, and it lacks the wreath of leaves on top of the rolled fillet.
Otherwise the two are identical, even to the course of the unsymmetrical wrinkles in the fore-
head. Though it is difficult to judge the relative quality of the two pieces in view of the dis-
integration of the surface of the Agora head, the somewhat more plastic and varied appearance
of the locks on the forehead suggests that this was originally a better piece of work than the
replica in Eleusis.
The Eleusis head was included by Rodenwaldt in a series of portraits of elderly men whom he
identified as Neo-Platonist philosophers and dated near the end of the fourth century after
Christ.2L'Orange recognized that this date was much too late. Finding in the Eleusis head a
64 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
direct continuation of the style of the Gallienianperiod, he dated it in the seventies of the third
century.3 The Agora head suggests that this date ought perhaps to be raised a bit further, to
the reign of Gallienus himself. Though the fragment was found lying loose in a mixed deposit
which offered no evidence whatsoever for its date, it does show unmistakable signs of burning.
The surface is blackened and disintegrated by fire, and it was doubtless heat that caused the
face to split off from the rest of the head. Though there is, of course, no proof as to when this
occurred,we know that the area in which the head was found was the scene of a fierce confla-
gration in A.D. 267, when the Heruli sacked the city of Athens. Both the Odeion and the Stoa
of Attalos were destroyed in that fire, and the portrait may well have stood in or near one of
these two great buildings.
There is an interesting parallelism between the Agora-Eleusis portraits and two found in
Athens (P1.46,d) which L'Orangedates in the time of Gallienus.4Like ours, these two portraits
are replicas differing principally in the fact that one wears a strophion and wreath of leaves,
while the other wears only the strophion. H. Ingholt, in an article soon to appear, suggests that
the combination of strophion and wreath is in Athens the insignia of the high priest of the
imperial cult.5 Since these priests were taken from the noble clan of the Kerykes, who held
some of the principalEleusinian priesthoods,6it is not surprisingthat a portrait of a high priest
should also turn up at Eleusis wearing different insignia, presumably those of his Eleusinian
office.
1 Rodenwaldt, 76 Wp., no. 7, fig. 2; L'Orange, Studien, cat. no. 58, figs. 108-109; Hekler, Die Antike, XVI, 1940, pp.
135ff., fig. 23. Hekler suggests identification with the sophist Nikagoras, who was hierokeryx. See also below, pp. 100-105.
2 Op. cit., pp. 3-15.
3 L'Orange, op. cit., pp. 41 f.
' Op. cit., cat. nos. 11 and 12, figs. 25-27, 29. L'Orange, clinging to the idea of philosopher portraits, suggests that these
two represent Longinus. If the theory of Ingholt, see below, is correct, this identification is untenable.
6 I am grateful to
Mr. Ingholt for informing me of his theory in advance of its publication.
e J. Oliver, The Athenian Expounders, p. 98.

50. PORTRAIT OF A MAN, LAST QUARTER OF THE THIRD CENTURY Plate 32.
Inv. S 1256.FoundJune 7, 1947in an earlyByzantinewall at the bottomof the valley betweenthe
Areopagus andthe Hillof the Nymphs,westof the northwestspurof the Areopagus
(D 17).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.265 m., W. 0.195 m., H. chin to crown0.245 m.
Headbrokenoffat neck.Nosebrokenoff.Eyebrows, centralpartsof eyes,lips,chinchippedaway.Features
but on left sidetemple,cheekandjowlwellenoughpreservedto give
on rightsideof facenearlyobliterated,
anideaof the modelling.Wholesurfacewornandcrumbling.
This appears to be the portrait of a rather elderly man. Both hair and beard are cut rather
short, the hair combed forward horizontally and the beard brushed horizontally back to the
sides. The hairline is deeply indented at the temples, curving forward over the forehead and on
the sides. The hair is drawn with the chisel in a linear suggestion of short strands. The beard is
indicated by rather coarse curved incisions running in a more or less horizontal direction.
Nothing remains of the inner drawing of the eyes.
The cut of the hair and beard is closely paralleled in other Athenian works, which L'Orange
places in the early Tetrarchic period. The face too resembles closely those of other Athenian
portraits of the late third century (Pl. 47, e).1The features are heavy and grim, so deeply cut that
they have in part survived the pitiless erosion of the surface that the portrait has suffered. Two
deep horizontalwrinklesare visible in the brow, and there may have been a third one below these.
 CATALOGUE 65
The eyesockets are deep, with the eyes themselves bulging out from them. Since the prominent
parts of the eyeballs have been chipped away, the intensity of expression which the eyes must
have had originally has been completely lost. The cheeks are flabby, and deep, harsh folds run
diagonally below them. There are folds also at the corners of the mouth. If the right side of the
face were better preserved, we should probably find the same "restless asymmetry" that
characterizesother portraits of its kind.2All these works belong in general to the western, more
naturalistic school distinguished by L'Orange from the more formalized, eastern school of
portraiture of the early Tetrarchic period and, more specifically, to the Greek subdivision of
this school.3The Agora head in its present condition adds nothing to our knowledge of the style,
but its existence is worth recordingfor the sake of statistics.
1 L'Orange, Studien, cat. nos. 53, 55, 56, figs. 98-99, 102-105. He concludes (p. 39) that the hair brushed forward onto
the forehead and separated by indentations from the side hair is a peculiarly Greek fashion of the period. Since the longish
hair probably descends directly from the Gallienian style, and the brushed-back beard is already the fashion in the time of
Claudius Gothicus (cf. ibid., figs. 243, 244), it is quite possible that some of these Athenian heads are somewhat earlier than
the time of the Tetrarchy. Owing to the scarcity of material from Athens belonging to the late third century, a period when
economic collapse seems to have made portraits an increasingly rare luxury, it is doubtful whether Athenian works of this
period can ever be closely dated except through identification, as in the case of L'Orange, cat. no. 53, which he believes is
a portrait of Diocletian. Cat. no. 56 (P1. 47, e), which is the closest of the three to our head, though obviously a work of
higher quality, has slenderer proportions and more careful modelling than the other two and lacks the heavy folds under the
eyes. Hence it has a good chance of being earlier than the others.
2 L'Orange, op. cit., p. 39.
3 Ibid., p. 44.

51. PORTRAITOF A YOUNG MAN, SECONDHALF OF THIRD CENTURY Plate33.

Inv. S 1406.FoundApril26, 1949builtinto a lateRomanaqueductin frontof the Stoaof Attalos(N 8).
Pentelic marble. H. 0.405 m., W. 0.19 m., H. chin to crown 0.24 m.
Split into two approximatelyequalhalves, with the breakrunningdownleft side of face. Nose broken off.
Top of left ear chippedand that of right ear rubbed.A chip gone out of right side of lowerlip. Surfacein
good condition.Tracesof red paint on lips.
Hesperia,XIX, 1950,pp.331f., pl. 105a.
Publishedby H. A. Thompson,
The head is made with a deep tenon at the bottom for setting into a statue. It represents a
quite young man (the profileis almost that of a little boy) but, as the stubble beard shows, one
not too young to shave. The hair is cut in a straight line across the forehead. On each side the
hairline dips down in a quarter-circle in front of the ear. Within this outline the hair is a
smoothly rounded cap, in the surface of which the strands of hair are drawn by means of
continuous chiselled lines which stop only when crossed by another or when they converge to
form the end of a pointed lock. The short beard is renderedby mere stippling of the smoothed
surface of the face with the point. The carving of the face is simplified and symmetricized to a
degree rare in Athenian work. The forehead is a smoothly curved band on which are cut two
ornamentally symmetrical wrinkles. On each side of the face a small triangularplane is inserted,
in lieu of a modelled transition, between the planes of the temple and the cheek. The eyebrow
arches are as sharp and simple as in work of the fifth century B.C. or of the time of Constantine.
The hairs of the eyebrows are indicated by little nicks made with the point above and below the
edge in a sort of herringbonearrangement.The eyes are very wide and flat. The iris is engraved;
the pupil is hollowed out in the form of a fairly deep elliptical cup. The upper lid is wide and rather
flat, the lower lid quite flat. The carving of the ears is surprisinglycrude, flat and simplified.
It is difficult to find any wholly satisfactory parallel for this singular head. The absurdly
crude flat ears are without parallel in Athenian sculpture. It is conceivable that something went
5
66 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

wrong in the original carving of them and that what we have is an awkwardattempt to salvage
the situation. The fact that the cavity of the left ear is over-large and oddly shaped would
support such a suggestion. The outline of the hair is most nearly duplicated in two heads in the
National Museumin Athens which have been classed as works of the Tetrarchicperiod belong-
ing to the formalizedeastern school of art.1 These two heads also have stippled beards, but they
lack the peculiar linear treatment of the locks of hair that distinguishesthe Agorahead. For the
latter a partial parallel may be found in a fragmentary head in Olympia on which the locks are
represented by the same sort of coarse parallel grooves arrangedin an illogically overlapping
pattern.2 Here, however, the hairline is a smooth oval line like that of the period of Constantine,
and the sharp, unengraved eyebrows and blank eyeballs suggest Constantinian classicism.3
Both in the two heads in the National Museum and in the Olympia head the workmanshipis
much cruder than in the Agora portrait; the modelling is harsh and irregularand the surface is
poorly finished.
Perhaps the closest parallel for the coarse linear drawing of the locks within the outline of the
hair mass is to be found not in stone sculpture but in terracottas of the third and fourth
centuries, in which the gouged technique is a natural one. We may compare a series of plastic
jugs from the Agora (P1. 47,d), some of which come from contexts certainly earlier than A.D.
267.4 In these head-vases we find already much of the geometrical simplification, the stiffness
and symmetry that are characteristicof fourth-century sculpture.
The surface modelling of the flesh in our portrait, in spite of its simplification, is not hard or
sharp. Except for the eyebrows all the edges are blunted in a way that makes the outlines and
shadows seem less harsh and the marble somehow more translucent. This is to be noted in the
full lips and, more particularly,in the eyes. This same blunted effect occurs also in a portrait of
an ephebe in the Athens National Museum (P1. 46,a) which has, like our head, a rigid, almost
ornamentalsymmetry of design.5Because of this symmetry and because the hair is all brushed
forward onto the forehead in an oval hairline, the ephebe has hitherto been dated to the time
of Constantine.6So late a date can now be proved to be untenable, since the "Valerian Wall,"
in the filling of which the portrait of the ephebe was found, is shown by the results of the Agora
excavations to have been constructed around A.D. 280.7 So far as we can judge, in the present
state of our knowledge, a date between 267 and 275 is perhaps the most plausible for the ephebe,
since such a date would reconcile the demands of style and those of archaeologicalprobability.8
In the case of our present portrait the problem is more difficult. While certain traits of the
style suggest a late date, the evidence of its proveniencehas led H. A. Thompsonto favor a date
before 267. The head was found built into an aqueduct of the fifth century after Christin which
were incorporated fragments of other sculptures and inscriptions damaged in the sack of 267.
If the head belonged to a portrait set up after 267, it must have been carried from elsewhere,
since no portraitswould have been set up in the ruined Agorain the years immediately following
the destruction. Since, however, it is not a stone particularly adapted to wall-building, it is
highly improbablethat it would have been hauled in from elsewhereexpressly for that purpose,
especially when there was so much debris lying ready to hand. All questions of style apart,
therefore, the simplest explanation would be that the portrait was itself destroyed in 267 and
lay among the other debris of this destruction until it was picked up and used by the builders
of the aqueduct.9
If our portrait must indeed be dated before 267, its style is perhaps best to be explained by
the assumption that the eastern influence which in the time of the Tetrarchy led, as L'Orange
 CATALOGUE 67
has demonstrated,10to the creation of a symmetrical, geometrized style that ran parallel to a
more naturalistic western Roman style actually began to be effective as early as the middle of
the third century. A hint of this is perhaps to be seen in the pre-Herulianhead-vases mentioned
above. A bronze portrait of Gordian III in Sofia from Nikopolis ad Istrum, the product of a
local Balkan workshop, already shows, as K. Lehmann points out, the stiffness that we expect
in later works." Like our Agora portrait, it shows a flat, unmodelled forehead and a sharp,
rectilinearhairline. The shape of the eyes is very close to that of our head, and the eyebrows are
similarly, though more elaborately rendered. The surface of the hair, on the other hand, is
treated in the manner usual to works of the mid third century, and supports the dating and
identification of the head. In the non-Greekprovinces of the Roman Empire there may be some
question as to how far the early appearanceof a decorative, geometrized style is due to eastern
influence and how much to a resurgenceof tendencies inherent in the local art. In the case of
Greece, it can only be the former, but the greater proximity of Greece to the East and the
weakening of the political and economic control of Rome would explain its receiving the eastern
influence earlierthan Rome itself.
At present our knowledge of Athenian portrait style in the mid third century is inadequate
either to prove or to preclude a date before 267 for our portrait. On the other hand, the archae-
ological evidence of its provenience which favors the earlier date is by no means water-tight.12
It seems impossible, therefore, to assign a date to the piece or to fit it into a developmental
series. These uncertainties merely add to the interest of this unusual head, which by its refusal
to conform to ready-made categories reminds us how much remains to be explored before
Greece'srole in the transition to Late-Classicall3 art is thoroughly understood.
1 L'Orange, Studien, p. 27, cat. nos. 19 and 20, figs. 53-57, N.M. nos. 536 and 658.
2 Olympia, III, p. 249, 283d.
3 Cf. below, No. 53.
4 H. S. Robinson contributes the following note on these plastic head-vases: "Eight of these vases (Inv. P 570, 5514,
6206, 10004, 10240 (plus 10244 which joins), 10762, 11939 and T 1048) are represented in the Agora catalogue. Of these, four
come from fills which are unreliable for dating purposes (P 570, 5514, 6206 and T 1048). P 10762 is from a well filling which
is probably post-Herulian. P 10004 (P1.47, d; Hesperia, VII, 1938, pp. 348-9, fig. 33) is from a well filling which is probably
pre-Herulian. P 10240 and 11939 are from a well filling almost certainly pre-Herulian. The evidence of P 10004, 10240 and
11939 points to a pre-Herulian origin for the head vases. An even stronger argument for such a dating lies in the form of the
neck and trefoil lip, as illustrated especially in P 10004 and P 11939. Such lips occur commonly in unglazed oinochoes of
the third century after Christ; these also often have grooves about the neck (as P 10004) and are of the same fabric as several
of the head vases. This type of neck and lip does not seem to occur in post-Herulian deposits."
5 Graindor, Cosm&tes, no. 33, pp. 378ff., pl. 26; L'Orange, Studien, cat. no. 85, figs. 161, 162.
6 Graindor, loc. cit.; L'Orange,
op. cit., pp. 57 f.
7 See below, p. 91.
8 See below, pp. 99-100.
9 H. A. Thompson, loc. cit., above, p. 65,
10L'Orange, Studien, pp. 16ff.
11 Kluge and Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antiken Grossbronzen(Berlin and Leipzig, 1927), II, p. 48, fig. 3; Filow, L'Art
antique en Bulgarie (Sofia, 1925), p. 54, fig. 43.
12For example, the head might conceivably have been fetched from elsewhere in Athens during the fifth century to adorn
one of the draped torsos which were recovered from the ruins of the Odeion and set up in the area of the Gymnasium that
was constructed here around A.D. 400. See below, pp. 74-75.
13For the definition of the term "Late-Classical"see below, p. 90, note 1.

52. PORTRAIT OF A MIDDLE-AGED MAN, LAST QUARTER OF THIRD CENTURY OR BEGINNING

OF FOURTH Plate 34.

Inv. S 1604.FoundApril5, 1952in a Byzantinehousefoundationabout 5 m. to the west of the centralpart
of the Odeion(K 10).
Pentelic marble.H. 0.458 m., W. 0.204 m., H. chin to crown0.287 m.
Nose andlobe of left earchipped.Splotchesof browndiscolorationonleft side.Surfacefreshandunweathered.
5*
68 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
The head, carved with a conical tenon for setting into a draped statue, portrays a middle-
aged man with short hair, stubble beard and short mustache. The hair, brushed uniformly
forward, rests like a cap on the back of the head. The back hair is merely blocked out and
dressed to an evenly curved rough surface. This and the sharp offset of the lower edge from the
back of the neck enhance the cap-like effect. On the sides and top of the head the short hair is
renderedby shallow parallel strokes of a narrow gouge. At the top of the forehead five flame-
shaped locks longer than the rest of the hair are outlined individually against the skin. The
texture of the beard is suggested by means of shallow working with the gouge and point to
give a roughened surface. The mustache is rendered with thin parallel strokes. In the center
of the depression between the lower lip and chin is a protuberancethat seems to represent a
"mouche." Rather aimless gouge and point marks like those in the beard are used for the hairs
of the eyebrows.
The modelling of the face is simple and rather crude. The awkward, angular transition from
eyebrows to nose in particular seems to betray a lack of skill. The forehead is plain except for
the faint suggestion of two vertical wrinkles between the eyebrows. The eyes are deep-set and
have wide lids. The pupils are drilled in the shape between cardioid and crescent which is
sometimes graphically called "worm-shaped."The irises are lightly engraved. Light rasp marks
appear on all the flesh surfaces.
The hair brushed uniformly forward from the crown of the head follows a post-Gallienian
style which continues throughout Late Antiquity.' The combination of hair rendered by
shallow parallel strokes with a faint suggestion of overlappinglocks and stubble beard rendered
by stippling is common in the late Tetrarchicperiod.2The simple way in which the back hair is
outlined and set off from the neck is also paralleledin Tetrarchicand later heads;3 a portrait in
the Capitolineidentified as Probus seems to be one of the earliest instances of this feature.4The
isolated flame-shapedlocks over the foreheadlook like a survival of the locks on the foreheads of
the "philosopher"portraits (P1. 47, b and c) a group which I should like to date in the period
immediately following Gallienus.5 The shape of the face with the high trapezoidal forehead
likewise recalls these portraits, as do the melancholy eyes, the most carefully sculptured element
of our head. The "mouche" on the lower lip, which appears rather odd in conjunctionwith the
stubble beard, must derive from the fashion more naturalistically renderedin a portrait in the
Athens National Museum (P1. 47, e) dated by L'Orange to the early Tetrarchicperiod.6
In this very dull portrait with its fading echoes of the more expressive post-Gallienian style
and its timid acceptance of the new simplifying conventions of the Tetrarchic period, we seem
to see the life going out of Athenian portraiture. Certainly it would be unfair to take this as
typical of the best that Athenian portraitists could do around the turn of the century - it is
always possible that better pieces will turn up, but we do see already here the lack of plasticity,
the fear of cutting into the stone, that seems to be typical of later Athenian work.7
1 Coins of the
emperorsimmediately following Gallienus are the first to show all the hair around the face brushed forward.
Earlier in the third century the side front hair is brushed back toward the ears. See below, p. 99.
2 Cf.
L'Orange, Studien, figs. 130-132, 137-38.
3 Cf. L'Orange,
op. cit., figs. 132, 138, 140, 170; Goldscheider, Roman Portraits, pls. 106, 113.
4 L'Orange, op. cit., fig. 92; Paribeni, pl. 343. The head is Salone, no. 66, shown only in a front view in Jones, Catalogue
pl. 75.
6 See below, pp. 100-105. The group was dated by Rodenwaldt (76 Wp.) to the late fourth century and by L'Orange
op. cit., pp. 40ff. from the seventies of the third century to around 325.
6
L'Orange, op. cit., cat. no. 56, figs. 103, 104, pp. 39f., no. 4.
7 See below, No. 53.
 CATALOGUE 69
53. FRAGMENTARY
PORTRAITOF A MAN, FOURTHCENTURY Plate 32
Inv. S 775.FoundMay25, 1936in a modernwallin the northeastpartof the Agorasquare.
Pentelicmarble.Pres. H. 0.17 m., Pres. W. 0.185 m., Pres. D. 0.095 m.
Onlyfrontpartof top of headandforeheadwithupperpartof left eye andhalfof righteyebrowpreserved.
Tracesof mortarfromwalladhereto surface.

The short hair is combed forward and down over the forehead. The hairline is a smooth
symmetrical curve, uninterrupted by the contours of the individual locks, but with a tiny
ogival point in the center. The locks are very flatly chiselled, the drill not being used. They are
laid in more or less formal rows from front to back, becoming increasingly shallow and poorly
defined as they go back. The forehead is without modelling. The eyebrows are smooth arcs with
no plastic rendering. The eyelid is sharp-edged. The eyeball is smooth with no sign of drilled
pupil or engravediris. This head is slightly under life-size, and there is not enough of it preserved
to make it certain whether it was a portrait in the round or part of a relief. The hair brushed
forward in rows of short overlapping locks and the symmetrically arched hairline correspond
to the mode established in the time of Constantine. The shape of the locks and their flat carving
are paralleledin the head of Constantinein a medallion on the Arch of Constantine,'though the
hairline there is not yet so schematized nor the modelling so simplified. In view of the rigid
schematization that appearsin some Athenian work even beforeConstantine,it seems unneces-
sary to make this portrait later than his reign, though as a second-rateandthoroughlygeneralized
(as well as sadly fragmentary) piece it is not to be dated too closely. The lack of inner drawing
in the eye may be part of a classicism that also started in the time of Constantine.2
Undistinguished though it is, this fragment is probably a fair representative of the sort of
work that was being done in Athens in the fourth century. It well illustrates the shallow
quality of surface carving that seems to be characteristic of very late Athenian sculpture.3The
surface rudeness that we find in much late third century work has been smoothed away again,
but no charactersurvives beneath the smoothness. What is left is pure formula, icy and vacant.
1 L'Orange, Studien, figs. 120-122; L'Orange and von Gerkan, Der spatantike Bildschmuckdes Konstantinbogens(Studien
zur spdtantikenKunstgeschichte,X, Berlin, 1939), pl. 43, a-c.
2
L'Orange, Studien, pp. 56f. Cf. also the head of an emperorin Berlin, ibid. cat. no. 83, fig. 159. A head in Olympia (Olym-
pia, III, p. 249, fig. 283d) with an oval hairline and stippled beard, of rather crude workmanship generally, shows the same
classicizing treatment of the eyes and eyebrows.
3 See below, p. 70.

54. PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN, FOURTH CENTURY Plate 35.

Inv. S 248.Foundin 1933in the demolitionof a modernhousein thenorthwestpartof the excavationarea
(J 8).
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.285m. (equalsapproximately H. chinto crown),W. 0.265m., D. 0.23m.
off
Headbroken just below chin.Entiresurfaceof face batteredaway.Innercornersof eyesarethe only
locatablefeatures.Bits of originalsurfacepreservedin hairon rightside and in backandin fleshsurface
immediately adjacentto hairlineonrightsideandin back.
The face was apparently a smooth oval, the cheeks merging into the neck with very little
offset. The hair is dressed in what seems to be a variation of the coronet-braidstyle initiated
by Galeria Valeria and worn in various forms throughout the fourth century.' The wretched
preservation of our piece makes the mechanics of the coiffure difficult to decipher. One may
70 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

suspect, however, that the sculptor himself did not know exactly where each bit of hair came
from nor where it was going. A band of waves frames the face, covering the ears. Just behind
this a broad twist of hair is brought forward from behind each ear and across the top of the
head. What happened to it in the center there is no way of knowing, for this part is not pre-
served. Behind that is a second twist encircling the entire head.2 A raised strip, presumably
representing a braid, runs up the back of the head. The main masses of the hair are simply
blocked out and given a relatively smooth chisel finish. In the wave-band that frames the face
the troughs of the waves are hollowed out somewhat, but the edge of the hair is not scalloped
to conform to the waves. The strands are engraved with thin, scratchy lines both in the waves
and in the torus-like twists behind the wave-band. There is no indication of strands of hair on
the back of the head. Even more than the preceding portrait this over life-sized head with its
feeble carving illustrates the reluctance of very late Athenian sculptors to cut into the stone.
A broad smoothed area below the hair in back concealing the back of the neck may be part
of a garment that came up high in the back or it may be simply a piece of stone left there to
strengthen the neck.3In either case we should probably assume that the head was workedin one
piece with the statue to which it belonged, as was certainly the case in our fifth-century togatus
from the Agora.4
Its size indicates that this must be a portrait of a lady of the imperial household, for it seems
utterly unlikely that any lesser female would have been so honored in Athens in this period.
Her identity is scarcely to be read from her features, and even her highly distinctive coiffure
does not permit close dating. Of the style of the face the only thing discernible is that there
were heavy pouches under the eyes, a device used especially from the late Constantinianperiod
on to emphasize the expression of the eyes.5 The general type of hairdress worn by our lady
remains in use throughout the greater part of the fourth century, but there is no exact parallel
for the peculiar arrangementthat we have here. For the back hair blocked out and smoothed
without indication of strands a parallel is to be found in a portrait in Como apparently re-
presenting a lady of the House of Constantine.6A clear example of the braid up the center
of the back in combination with a coronet of hair and front waves is to be seen in a portrait of
Flaccilla, now in New York, dated by Delbriick around 380 (P1. 48, a).' This shows the narrow
oval face and attenuated features that seem to be characteristicof the late fourth century.8Our
head with its massive forms ought probably, therefore, to be dated somewhat earlier,though
the fourth-century material from Athens is too sparse to let us know to what extent the tides
of current imperial fashion were felt in this provincial backwater. A considered guess would
place our portrait somewherebetween 325 and 370.

1 Cf. Wessel, Arch. Anz., 1946-7, cols. 70 f., fig. 4 and Delbriick, Spatantike Kaiserportrits, pp. 47ff.
2 If we assume that our sculptor was completely confused about the nature of the coiffure he was portraying, we might
say that the two twists ought properly to have been the upper and lower halves of a heavy coronet braid, in which the braiding
was often schematically indicated by herringbone hatchings (cf. P1. 48, a). The rounded terminations of the lower half would
then have been transferred by mistake from the next layer down, the wave-band, which in many cases does have such a
termination (see Wessel, op. cit., fig. 4 and Delbrtick, op. cit., pl. 11, top row).
3 Cf. a statue of a woman in Saloniki, Pelekanidis, B.C.H., LXXIII,
1949, pl. 13.
4 No. 64 below.
6 Cf. L'Orange, Studien, figs. 166-168; Delbriick, op. cit., pl. 69 and p. 51, fig. 20.
6
Delbrtick, op. cit., pl. 70.
'Ibid., pls. 99-101, p. 202. Acquired in 1947
by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, B.M.M.A., VII, 1948-9,
p. 14.
8 See L'Orange, op. cit., pp. 74-76.
 CATALOGUE 71

55. FRAGMENTARY PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN, FOURTH CENTURY Plate 35.

Wall"in the Eleusinionarea(T19).
Inv. S 931.FoundMay21,1937in a modernwalleastof the "Valerian
Pentelicmarble.Pres. H. 0.195 m., W. 0.22 m.
Headbrokenoffjustbelowchin.Wholetop of headbrokenawayin a diagonalsliceslopingdownward from
(proper)right to left. Most of face batteredoff. Hair-massintact belowtop break exceptfor a big chipoff
left side next to face. Sidesof both cheeks and most of jawlinepreserved,but chinand throatbroken away
in front.
The head seems to have been made in one piece with the statue or bust to which it belonged.
At the back of the slender neck a pillar-like support about 6 cm. wide is left to strengthen the
neck, and a projection on the left side at the back just in front of this supportseems to show that
the edge of a garment came up close under the hair in back.
The coiffure of this lady, like that of the preceding, is not easy to decipher. The hair seems
to have been parted in the center and drawn back gently on both sides. It was then twisted
lightly into a roll or puff that seems to have encircled the head after the fashion of a coronet-
braid, although it is not braided. A braid runs up the back of the head. The strands of hair
are indicated throughout by very shallowly chiselled, slightly wavy lines.
The shape of the face is a narrow oval, perfectly regular and unbroken by the hairline. This
and the smooth flatness of the surfaces that are preservedgive the head an almost archaiclook,
an impression that is strengthened by the eyes with the smooth curved grooves below the lower
lids and the lack of transition to the side planes of the face. Of the ears only the lobes show, very
flatly rendered and pierced with drill-holes which doubtless served for the attachment of
ornaments.
Its coiffure places our head in the fourth century after Christ, for in spite of its peculiarities
it belongs to the general class of coronet-braid coiffures.' The slender proportions and the
stylized symmetry of the face suggest the late fourth century.2For the proportionsand for the
very flat carving a good parallel is offered by a portrait, probably of Flaccilla, now in the
MetropolitanMuseum of Art in New York, which Delbrfick has dated around 380 (P1. 48, a).3
Like ours, this portrait is slightly under life-size. Its coiffureis more conventional than that of
ours, but it too has the braid running up the center of the back.
This piece, which is probably the latest of our portrait heads from the Agora, may have been,
in its originalstate, a work of some charm. Stylistically its most notable feature is the shallow-
ness of the carving. By this time there was no trace of a plastic tradition surviving in Greece.
1 For this
category in general see Wessel, Arch. Anz., 1946-7, cols. 70f., fig. 4 and Delbriick, Spatantike Kaiserportrats,
pp. 47f. The style was initiated by GaleriaValeria and continued in use with variations throughout the fourth century.
2 Cf. L'Orange, Studien, pp. 74-76.
3 Op. cit., p. 202. See above, No. 54, note 7.

PORTRAIT STATUES

56. PORTRAIT STATUE OF THE EMPEROR HADRIAN (A.D. 117-138) Plates 36-37.
Inv. S 166.FoundJuly 25, 1931in the GreatDrainof the Agoraat a pointabout8 meterseastof the
northeastcornerof the Metroon(I 9); removedfromthe drainFebruary9, 1932.Thetorsohad evidently
of A.D.267,as a coverslabforthe Great
been re-usedin late Romantimes,afterthe Heruliandestruction
Drain,the channelof whichis here1.10m. wide.Onthe drainthe statuehadlainface down;its backis
slightlywornby traffic.
Pentelicmarble.H. 1.52 m.; W. at shoulders0.82 m.
72 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
Head,left armandrightforearm,madeseparatelyand attached,nowmissing.Both legs brokenoff at
knees.Partof rightleg possiblypreservedin a non-joiningfragment(seebelow).Chipsgonefromedgesof
strapsin kilt andfromrelief on
figures cuirass.'
Publishedby T. L. Shear,Hesperia,II, 1933,pp. 178-183,figs.8-10, pl. 6; of. alsoArch.Anz.,1932,col.
112,fig.5; ArtandArchaeology,XXXIV,1933,p. 22; P. Graindor, Athknes sousHadrien,pp. 258-259.-

The torso, of heroic size, has a deep socket (P1.37) for the insertion of the tenon by which the
head, carved in a separate piece, was attached. The right arm was dowelled on at the joint
between the short sleeve of the tunic and the bare arm, the edge of the sleeve forming an
overlapping rim that protected the joint. The raised left arm was dowelled on at the shoulder.
On the top of the left shoulder is a small remnant of a fillet, undercut at one point so as to
rise free from the shoulder. Beyond it is a large shallow bedding, perhaps intended to receive
a lug cut in one piece with the arm to assist in the support of the arm and to protect the joint
against rain water. Another large open bedding on the right shoulder outside the brooch
perhaps received the other end of the fillet.
The Emperor wears a metal cuirass bordered at the lower edge with a double row of short,
rounded lappets. The front of the cuirass and the lappets are decorated with symbolic figures
in high relief. A kilt formed of a single tier of leather straps with fringed ends extends to the
knees, and a double row of shorter straps protects the shoulders. Beneath the armor is worn
a short tunic of which the lower edge and the right sleeve are visible. Over it is thrown a heavy
paludamentumfastened on the right shoulder by a circularbrooch. It crosses the chest in front
and is thrown back over the left shoulder, so that it covers the back of the statue but leaves the
arms free.
The decoration of the cuirass, which provides the means of identifying the statue, symbolizes
with admirable conciseness the philhellenic policy of the Roman ruler. It occurs in at least
nine other examples,2 all found in the Greek East, of which two3 preserve portrait heads of
Hadrian. A Palladion in archaistic form, armed with spear and shield, stands on a figure of the
she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, which rests in turn upon a fan of acanthus leaves. Vine-
tendrils springing from the leaves frame the representation and provide a ground-line for two
figures of Victory which flank the goddess, holding wreaths with which to crown her. Between
the Victories and Athena smaller tendrils support the goddess's attributes, the owl and the
snake. The lappets are symmetrically decorated with a series of emblems which occurs with
minor variations not only on the statues with the Palladion but also on some with a different
theme.4 Reading from the center out, they are: in the first row, head of Ammon, eagle with
outspread wings, Medusa head in profile,5elephant head; in the second row, helmet, lion head,
and rosette.
The Emperor stands with his weight resting on the right leg, the left leg relaxed. The left arm
was upraised, presumably holding a spear, and the right arm was extended forward. The pose
of the legs and body seems to have been the same as in the statue of the same type found in
Kisamos in Crete.6The position of the arms may be visualized from the statue in Olympia7of
which the arms are preserved.
No two of the surviving examples of the type are identical. Variations occur in the pose, in
minor details of the decoration (the owl is to Athena's left on our statue and on that fromHier-
apytna, to the right on those from Olympia and Kisamos), in the elaboratenessof the rendition
and in the form of the supports. A fragment of a right leg (P1.37) found in 1936 possibly belongs
to our statue.8 It wears a high boot made of a panther skin, the head and the two paws hanging
 CATALOGUE 73
down from above; in front are traces of crisscross lacing. The leg is carved in one piece with
the stump of a palm tree of which the top is preserved,the back rough-picked.The panther-skin
boots occur regularly in armored statues of Hadrian, both of this type and of others.9 The
palm-tree support recursin the very fragmentarystatue of the present type found in the Odeion
at Corinth.10
The remnants of the fillet on the left shoulder show that the head of our statue was crowned
with a wreath. The preservedheads from Olympia and Hierapytna wear wreaths of laurel, but a
head from Athens which must have belonged to a statue in armorhas a wreath of oak leaves."
Since our statue is probably the one which Pausanias saw in front of the Stoa Basileios in the
Agora,'2we should perhaps restore it with the oak wreath, the coronacivica, which honors the
Emperor as the savior of his people's lives and would so render him a fit companion for Zeus
Eleutherios, the liberator of the people.
The carving of our statue is free and bold, showing more movement and variety in the folds
of the paludamentumacross the chest and in the straps of the kilt than does the statue in
Olympia, but in delicacy and wealth of detail it is vastly inferior to the fragmentary statue in
Corinth. The armor and drapery are finished with a medium rasp. A light polish visible on the
knees suggests that all the flesh surfaces were so treated. The faces of the minor figures are
likewise lightly polished. The drill was used sparingly to make the lappets stand out from their
backgroundand to enliven the fringes of the kilt. The outer cornersof the mouths of the Medusa
heads have been emphasized by shallow drill holes. A similarly restrained use of the drill is to
be seen in the carving of the panther-skin boot. The Athenians seem to have shown their
gratitude to Hadrian as much in the quantity as in the quality of the statues they erected to
him,'3 and ours was evidently a run-of-the-mill example.'4
During World War II the heads of Athena and of the Victory to her right were broken away by vandals.
1
2
Hekler, Jahreshefte,XIX-XX, 1919, pp. 232-233, gives the following list (I have altered and somewhat shortened his
bibliography):
1) Constantinople, Inv. no. 50; from Hierapytna: Schede, Griechische und r6mische Skulpturen des Antikenmuseens
(Meisterwerkeder tuirkischenMuseen zu Konstantinopel, I), pl. 33; Hekler, op. cit., p. 230, fig. 158; West, II, pl. 33,
fig. 126; Reinach, Repertoire, II, 576, 9.
2) Olympia, III, pl. 65, 1; Kunze, OlympischeForschungen,I, pl. 23; Hekler, op. cit., p. 231, fig. 159; West, II, pl. 33,
fig. 125; Reinach, II, 575, 1.
3) London, British Museum, Smith, Catalogue,II, no. 1466, from Cyrene; Hekler, op. cit., p. 232, fig. 160; Reinach, II,
585, 6.
4) Kisamos (western Crete), Mon. Ant., XI, 1901, pl. 25, 1; Hekler, op. cit., p. 233, fig. 161; Reinach, III, 162, 4.
5) Gortyn, Mon. Ant., XI, 1901, col. 308, fig. 10; Reinach, III, 162, 3.
6) Athens, Acropolis Museum, Inv. 3000; Hiibner, Augustus, pl. 2, 2; Reinach, II, 585, 4. Only the left half of the torso
preserved.
7) Athens, National Museum, unnumbered. Only fragments of torso preserved.
8) Athens, Acropolis, in front of the west front of the Parthenon. Only the torso preserved, badly weathered and worked
off on the sides, probably for re-use as a building stone.
To this list may be added:
9) Corinth, Odeion, Broneer, Corinth,X, pp. 125-133, figs. 118-127, Inv. No. 1456.
The present statue is the tenth in the list.
3 Above, note 2, nos. 1 and 2.
4 A torso in Mantua (Hekler, op. cit., p. 228, no. 3) is described as having the identical series of motifs on the lappets
except that the elephant heads are omitted. In this case, however, the principal decoration on the cuirass consists of Nikai
sacrificing bulls.
5 These heads lack the wings that such heads generally carry, but the heavy necklaces with a knot in front seem to be a
simplification of the twined snakes that usually form the necklaces of such Medusa heads. Cf. the example from Corinth,
Broneer, op. cit., fig. 120.
6 Above, note 2, no. 4.
? Above, note 2, no. 2.
8
Inv. S 749. Found on May 6, 1936, built into a late house foundation near the southeast corner of the Temple of Ares
(L 8), (Hesperia, VI, 1937, p. 352). H. 0.555 m., W. 0.285 m.; of leg alone: H. 0.495 m., W. 0.167 m. Pentelic marble. Preserved
from just below the knee to a point just above the ankle. The smooth finish of the leg is comparable to that of the knees
74 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

of the statue. Not only in size and in the type of boot but also in the pose the leg is suitable for our statue, since the
presence of the support on the right side shows that the right leg was the weight leg.
9 Cf. the examples cited above, note 2, nos. 1, 4, and 9 of the Palladion type and Hekler, op. cit., p. 215, fig. 142 and p. 224,
fig. 151. The statue of Mars Ultor in the Capitoline, ibid., p. 191, fig. 119; Jones, Catalogue,pl. 7, 40, called by Hekler a
Hadrianic copy, has similar boots. They are worn also by a statue found in the Nymphaion of Herodes Atticus at Olympia
(Olympia, III, pl. 65, 2; Kunze, OlympischeForschungen,I, pl. 24) which Schleif and Weber (OlympischeForschungen,I, p. 60)
date in the Hadrianic period, excluding it from the reconstruction of the Nymphaion.
10Above, note 2, no. 9.
11N.M. 3729. Erd6lyi, Archaeologiai Ertesiti, LI, 1938, pp. 113-116, figs. 38-39; West, II, pl. 31, figs. 119-119 a. Found
on Leophoros Syngrou.
12 Pausanias, I, 3, 2.
13Cf. Hesperia, II, 1933, p. 183.
14 There was
evidently also a bronze statue of Hadrian in the Agora. Its base (Inv. I 4188) was found near the northwest
corner of the Odeion, and was published by Shear, Hesperia, VI, 1937, pp. 352-354, figs. 16, 17, with the suggestion that it
belonged to our present marble statue. H. A. Thompson informs me, however, that the association is ruled out by the presence
in the top of the base of unmistakable cuttings for the fastening of a statue of bronze. Although the top of the block is badly
broken one can readily distinguish the round hole (0.095 m. in diameter, 0.10 m. deep) for a dowel beneath the left heel and
a shallow bedding for the sole of the left foot. The statue had been removed by carefully chiselling around the back of the
dowels beneath the heels. In the place of the right foot there remains only a little of this chiselling.

57. PORTRAIT STATUE OF A MAN IN HIMATION Plates 38-39.

Inv. S 936. Found May20, 1937to the east of the Gymnasium(0 10; see below).
Pentelic marblefromwhichveins of impuritieshave weatheredout here and there. H. 1.562m., W. of neck
socket0.19m.
Head,carvedin a separatepiece,missing.Feet andfingersof bothhands,exceptthumbof right,broken
away. Edges of draperychipped at many points. The statue seems to have been damagedin antiquity by
somethingfalling from above and strikingthe left shoulder,from which point cracksradiate. To repairthis
damagean area aroundthe back of the neck was roughlyworkeddown and a patch fastened on by means of
an iron dowel;the patch is gone, but the lowerpart of the dowelremains.The surfaceis moderatelyweather-
worn.A thick darkwater deposit (perhapsfromthe aqueductagainstwhichthe statue stood in its later days)
coversthe shoulders.
Brieflymentionedby T. L. Shear,Hesperia,VII, 1938,p. 323,fig.8.
This statue, as well as Nos. 58-61 below, belongs to a group which was found in 1937 in a
context that argues a similar history for the group as a whole. H. A. Thompson contributes the
following note on the provenance of these statues:'
"In the season of 1937 seven statues were found in the area to the east of the Gymnasium,
two of seated figures,2and five of standing (Nos. 57-61). Nos. 59 and 61 came to light in the
general area in scattered fragments, but the remaining five more or less complete statues were
found lying in a straggling row some 50 meters long at the west foot of an aqueduct which ran
at that time from southeast to northwest in the area betwe'enthe Gymnasium and the Stoa
of Attalos (then incorporated in the "'ValerianWall").3 It is altogether probable that the two
fragmentary statues had also formed part of this same company. Of the five better preserved
pieces the order from north to south was Inv. S 936 (No. 57), 930 (seated statue), 849 (No. 60),
850 (No. 58), and 826 (seated statue). The row of statues coincided fairly closely in length with
the east side of the great court of the Gymnasium toward which they must have faced. An
additional indication of a direct connection between the sculpture and the Gymnasiumis given
by the discovery in 1952 of an entrance to the building at the southeast cornerof its great court.
"For the chronological relationship it may be noted that the evidence thus far available
indicates for the construction of the Gymnasium a date ca. A.D. 400 and for its abandonment
a time in the third quarter of the 6th century or soon thereafter. The aqueduct carried water
from the grist mill known near the south end of the Stoa of Attalos presumably to another mill
 CATALOGUE 75
which must have lain just north of the old market square; its period of use must have coincided
with that of the first mill which has been shown to extend from the third quarter of the 5th
into the third quarter of the 6th century after Christ.4Both mill and Gymnasium,as indeed the
whole region of the Agora outside the "ValerianWall", were presumably abandoned as a result
of Slavic incursions in the second half of the century.
"As to the original place of the statues, it may be conjectured that some at least of the series
had stood in or around the Odeion of Agrippa which in its later period had been used by the
sophists. Like the "Giants", these statues may then have lain in the ruins of the Odeion from
the time of its destruction in A.D. 267 until the construction of the Gymnasium ca. A.D. 400
when they would have been plucked out and set up to adorn the surroundings of the new
building, in keeping with the continuity in function which there is reason to believe existed
between the Gymnasium and the Odeion in its later phase."5
The five standing figures belong to a single type, based ultimately upon classical Greek
himation statues of the 4th century B.C.,6 which in Roman times became widely accepted as
a standard scheme of draperyfor civilian male figuresin Greekdress.' The himation passes from
the left shoulder around the back of the figure, covering the entire back, and is drawn closely
across the front. The right forearm, enveloped by the drapery, is held diagonally against the
chest and the right hand emerges to grasp the bunched folds from around the neck or to rest,
more passively, in these folds as in a sling. The end of the himation is thrown over the left
shoulder and the left arm, and hangs down behind. The left arm is slightly flexed and the hand
held forwardjust enough to prevent the himation from slipping off. Sometimes the hand emerges
from the folds; sometimes it is enveloped by them. The principal system of folds is thus a
series of catenaries suspended from the left shoulder and passing around the figure with their
lowest points on the right side. Two secondary systems are formed by the loop of bunched folds
around the neck and the vertically hanging end of the himation over the left shoulderand arm.
A tunic or chiton worn under the himation appearsin V-shaped folds at the neck.
Some figures of this basic type rest the weight chiefly on the right foot, others on the left, and
this differenceeffects some change in the quality and distribution of the folds. When the weight
rests, as in the present example, mainly on the right foot, the outlines of the body are more
apparent beneath the drapery than when, as in No. 60, it is chiefly on the left, but in neither
case do they find a really organic expression. The consummate dullness of these Roman himation
statues as compared with their ancestors, Aeschines and the boy from Eretria,s is due in
part to the elimination of the horizontal folds across the center of the body that preserved
the articulation of the figure as effectively as the long diagonals from knee to shoulder now
destroy it.
Of the group now under discussion, three statues, Nos. 57, 58, and 59 have the weight on the
right foot. In all three the folds are numerous, narrow and uniformly spaced, and the patterns
are so similar that almost any fold one may choose from any of the three statues will find its
exact counterpartin the other two. In the present example a low base with a raised band around
its top, roughly semicircularin shape, supports the left leg and the mass of drapery that hangs
down on the left side. This is probably a schematic representation of a scrinium, or book-box,
a common form of supportin Roman himation and toga statues where the man representedwas a
man of letters, an orator, or an officialin civil government."Remains of book-boxes are preserved
also in Nos. 60 and 61 below, and they may well have been present originally in the other
standing statues of this group. In the case of No. 62, a figure of the same type but in a different
76 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE

style and from a different context, such a support seems to have been originally intended and
altered at the last minute.10
In technique the whole group of seven statues is strikingly homogeneous, though there are
minor differences in quality. Since the character of the workmanship points to the Antonine
period," H. A. Thompson sugests that all this sculpture may have been made for the Odeion
of Agrippa at the time of or soon after its reconstructionin the middle of the second century.
In the present example the workmanshipis painstaking. The front drapery has been roughly
finished with the emery, the flesh parts more carefully smoothed. Chisel and gouge marks are
prominent on the back. Drill and rasp are scarcely at all in evidence.
1 For plans cf. Hesperia, IX, 1940, pl. 1; XIX, 1950, p. 135, fig. 21.
SInv. S 826 and S 930. Published by H. A. Thompson, Hesperia, XIX, 1950, pp. 124-5, nos. 1-2, pls. 78-79.
3 The aqueduct is indicated as a heavy black line in Hesperia, IX, 1940, pl. 1.
4 Parsons, Hesperia, V, 1936, p. 88.
5 Hesperia, XIX, 1950, pp. 136f. For the evidence of damage and patching noted on Nos. 57, 58 and 61
cf. the repairs
effected on the Giants when they were re-used in the Gymnasium (Hesperia, XIX, 1950, pp. 105, 113). If any of the statues
pre-date the reconstruction of the Odeion they may have been damaged by the collapse of its roof and then repaired to be set
up again in the Odeion. For traces of damage to orchestra floor, marble benches and a statue base caused by the earlier
collapse of the Odeion roof cf. Hesperia, XIX, 1950, pp. 62, 63, 80.
6 The type descends from the statue of Aeschines (Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 53; Schefold, Bildnisse, p. 103), which differs
from it in placing the left hand on the hip, through the boy from Eretria, Hekler, op. cit., pl. 51, where the left hand takes
the position that later becomes canonical. Those of our statues that have the weight on the left foot conform exactly to the
scheme of the boy from Eretria except for the elimination of the crossfolds at the waist. Those with the weight on the right
foot resemble in this the Lateran Sophocles (Hekler, op. cit., pl. 52) and have sometimes been called "Sophocles type", but
the Sophocles is not a direct ancestor. I owe this genealogy to Margarete Bieber, who has traced the type from the 4th
century B.C. down into the middle ages.
7 This one scheme takes the place for male figures of a variety of Hellenistic drapery schemes used for women: the "Pu-
dicitia" type, the "Grande" and "Petite Herculanaise" types, the "Ceres" type, etc. It is so common on Attic gravestones
of the Roman period that Conze refers to it simply as "die fibliche Haltung". Probably the attitude connotes respect. There
seems to be no special significance attached to the distribution of the weight of the figure, alternation between the right and
left foot being simply a means of obtaining variety. This same pose and manner of draping is used also in figures wearing
the narrow toga of Republican Rome (cf. a group of four statues in Chiusi, Vessberg, pl. 85, 1-4).
8 See above, note 6.
9 In general the significance of the scrinium probably does not call for very close interpretation. Its uses must have been
at least as wide as those of the modern briefcase. It was a convenient form of support and would be suitable to almost any
male figure likely to be representedin civilian dress. Its addition by the Roman copyists to the statues of Sophocles, Aeschines
and Demosthenes shows the connection with letters and oratory. Politicians such as M. Nonius Balbus (Paribeni, pl. 161)
are ipso facto orators. Even a priestly function might involve the use of written documents (cf. the statues of Augustus
sacrificing: Paribeni, pl. 114; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pls. 165 b, 172). The book-box seems not to be represented unless a
support of some kind is needed. For bronze statues and seated figures a scroll in the hand served equally well.
10 See below, p. 78.
11 The statues may be compared in this respect with the "Giants" from the Odeion (Hesperia, XIX, 1950, pls. 61-71), the
figures from the Nymphaion of Herodes Atticus at Olympia (Olympia,III, pls. 65-69; Kunze, OlympischeForschungen,I, pls.
23, 25, 26) and the niche figure in the Odeion of Herodes in Athens (Neugebauer, Die Antike, X, 1934, p. 118, fig. 19).

58. PORTRAIT STATUE OF A MAN IN HIMATION Plates 38-39.

Inv.S 850.FoundMarch 16,1987to the eastof theGymnasium (P11; seenoteon provenance,above,p. 74).
Pentelicmarblecontainingsomeveinsof impurities.H. 1.58m., widthof necksocket0.20m.
Head,cut separatelyandset in a socket,missing.Rightshoulder,fingersof righthand,left forearmand
hand,feet brokenaway.A smallclampcuttingto eithersideof breakin left armindicatesthat this forearm
hadbrokenandbeenrepairedin antiquity.A patch0.08m. X 0.185m., set intodraperyof backin antiquity,
nowmissing.Lightweathering.

For the pose and the general type see above, No. 57. The figure stands with his weight
chiefly on the right foot, the left knee slightly flexed. The workmanshipis inferior to that of
No. 60. The drapery over the front has been lightly rasped, but on the back and much of the
sides the marks of chisel and gouge are prominent. Even the right hand is roughly finished.
 CATALOGUE 77
59. PORTRAIT STATUE OF A MAN IN HIMATION Plate40.
Inv. S 1346.Foundin 1937in the areato the eastof the Gymnasium
(seenoteonprovenance, above,p. 74).
Pentelicmarbleof goodquality.H. 1.42m., W. at shoulders0.565m.
Mendedfrommanyfragments. Head,workedseparatelyandset in a socket,nowmissing.Rightshoulder,
bothhands,feet andmuchof middlepartbrokenaway.Therighthandwasapparently damagedin antiquity
andreplaced;thereremainthe roughlypickedsocketforthe replacement andthe stainof an iron dowelby
whichit wassecured.Surfacemoderately weathered.

For the type and pose see above, No. 57. The figure rested his weight chiefly on his right
foot. The workmanshipis careful. The drapery on the front is finished smooth, apparently with
emery, since there is little trace of rasp work. Chisel and gouge marks are prominent on the
back.

60. PORTRAIT STATUE OF A MAN IN HIMATION Plates 38-39.

Inv. S 849.FoundMarch16, 1937,to the east of the Gymnasium
(P 11; see note on provenance,above,
p.74).
Pentelic marble.H. 1.425 m.
Remnantof a socketin top of torso showsthat head was cut separately.Right shoulderand arm,left hand
and feet brokenaway. Surfacemoderatelyweathered,enoughto show that the statue had stood out of doors
for sometime; a vein of impuritywashedout on the left arm.

For the type and pose see under No. 57 above. The weight of the figure rested chiefly on the
left foot. The workmanshipis careful. The drill is little in evidence. The surface of the drapery
is lightly rasped. Selvage, hem and a few crease marks have been indicated. The back is well
finished. Behind the left foot and just below the lower edge of the cloak is the top of a rectangular
object with a projecting band around the top of its wall, probably a book-box despite its
angularity.

61. PORTRAIT STATUE OF A MAN IN HIMATION Plate 40.

Inv. 8 1347.Foundin 1937,in the areato the eastof the Odeion(seenoteonprovenance,
above,p. 74).
Pentelic marble containing much impurity. H. of torso section 1.07 m., H. of foot section 0.29 m., H. of
section with lower edge of drapery 0.33 m.
The torso section has been put together from ten fragments. The association of the two smaller sections,
althoughnot certain,is made probableby the similarityin the quality and surfaceconditionof the marble
and in the workmanship.

The figure apparently stood with the weight chiefly on the left foot, for the right knee is
slightly flexed. For the type and pose see above, under No. 57. Beside the left leg was a cylin-
drical book-box with the lid in place. There remains a trace of the fastening of one end of the
looped cord handle. The left foot is shod in a heavy-soled boot, laced over the instep below a
thick, narrow tongue. The toes are exposed. The drapery is modelled in a bold and vigorous
style. Its surface is lightly rasped. The drill has been used in working out the details of the
boot. Selvage and hem of the garment are indicated.
78 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
62. PORTRAIT STATUE OF A MAN IN HIMATION Plate 40.
Inv. S 1354.Broughtto light in the excavationsof the GreekArchaeologicalSociety and left by the Greek
excavatorsin the north end of the Stoa of Attalos.
Pentelic marble. H. of statue 1.40 m., H. of base 0.15 m., W. of base 0.48 m., D. of base 0.45 m., socket for
tenon of head 0.15 m. wide and 0.15 m. deep.
Completeexcept for head, whichwas workedin a separatepiece, and for tips of fingersof left hand. Lightly
weathered.
For the pose and type see above, under No. 57. The figure rests its weight chiefly on the left
foot. A plain rectangular mass of marble supports the left ankle. A change in the surface from
smooth to rough suggests that the drapery over the left leg and foot was adjusted at a late
stage in the work and the front of the support changed from a convex to a straight face. Pos-
sibly a book-box was intended and was later eliminated in favor of a plain support. On the feet
sandals are schematically indicated. There are cuttings for hook dowels in the edges of the
plinth on both its ends and behind, to secure the plinth to its base.
The front and sides have been finished with emery. On the back chisel and gouge marks are
prominent. This statue differs markedly from the preceding five in the style of rendering the
folds. Especially striking is the rectilinear treatment of the folds over the bent right arm. Pos-
sibly the figure belongs in the third century after Christ.

63. FRAGMENT OF A PORTRAIT STATUE OF A WOMAN Plate 40

Inv. S 1345.Fromtheareaof the Gymnasium, northeasternpart.Tracesof lateRomanmortarsuggestthat
the fragmenthadbeenincorporated in the foundations
of the Gymnasium.
Pentelicmarble.H. 0.40 m., W. 0.50 m.
Fragmentpreservesupper part of left arm and some of left shouldertogether with adjacent portion of
torso.Thepieceis lightlyweathered.
This is a fragment of a female statue draped in chiton and himation. The folds of the himation
on the left side are wound around the left arm and caught against the body in a bunch at the
elbow. The left forearm was extended forward. The right arm was free of the himation, which
passed under the right armpit, and the right hand probably held a phiale.
The type (P1. 48, b) occurs at Olympia in no less than four examples,' two of which are
signed by Athenian sculptors, and two statues in the same scheme were found in the Agora at
Magnesia on the Maeander.2Watzinger, observing the similarity of the pattern of folds on the
shoulder to that of the Aeschines in Naples, postulates as a prototype a female statue of the
Hellenistic period.3
The modelling of our fragment is vigorous rather than refined. There are pronounced rasp
marks on the surface of the drapery. In the treatment of the folds the piece is much closer to
the statue of Regilla from the Nymphaion of Herodes at Olympia than to the first century
works of Eros and Eleusinios. It is not improbable that this statue, like the male figures Nos.
57-61, was set up in or near the Odeion of Agrippa at the time of its remodellingin the middle
of the second century. If, as seems likely, Herodes had something to do with the reconstruction
of the building,4it is just possible that Regilla herself was the person represented.
1 Olympia, III, pl. 63, 4 (signed by the Athenian sculptor Eros, second half of the first century after Christ); pl. 63,5 (signed
by Eleusinios, likewise an Athenian of the second half of the first century); pl. 63, 6 (portrait of an Empress, possibly of
Poppaea Sabina); and pl. 68,5 (our P1. 48, b; Regilla, the wife of Herodes Atticus, from the Nymphaion of Herodes).
2 Magnesia am
Maeander, p. 205, figs. 206-207.
3 Ibid., pp. 205-6. Thompson, Hesperia, XIX, 1950, p. 133.
 CATALOGUE 79
64. PORTRAIT STATUE OF A MAGISTRATE OR SENATOR, FIFTH CENTURY (2) Plates 41-42.
Inv. S 657.FoundMarch10,1936builtinto a modernwallca.7 metersnorthof thenortheastcornerof the
Gymnasium (M8).
Pentelic marble.H. 1.33 m., W. 0.593 m., Th. 0.363 m.
Head,rightshoulder, lefthandandbothfeetbrokenaway.Surfacelightlyweathered.
mostof rightforearm,
Publishedby T. L. Shear,A.J.A., XL, 1936,pp. 98f., fig. 18; J. Kollwitz,Ostromische
Plastik,pp. 91f.,
no. 19.

The figure is dressed in the garments that are worn regularly by consuls and men of consular
rank in the Late Roman Empire: a long under-tunicwith long, tight sleeves, a somewhat shorter
upper tunic (colobium)with wide short sleeves, and a toga.1 Since both hands are missing, it is
not clear what attributes, if any, they held. The left shoulder, which is undamaged, reveals no
trace of a scepter such as we normally find carried in the left hand with its end resting on the
shoulder in statues representing consuls or viri consulares.2
The details of the drapery are fully worked out only on the front and the proper left side of
the statue. The back, except for a narrow strip along the left side, has been left in a rough-
picked state, and the same is true of the right side down to the level of the hand. The carving
is very shallow, and the statue, especially in its lower portion, retains to a surprisingdegree the
rectangularity of the block from which it was hewn. The lower portion of the long under-tunic
is virtually without folds. That of the colobiumis marked by perfectly straight vertical grooves,
while its lower edge is an unbroken horizontal offset. A rounded offset that appears on the sides
at about the level of the lowest dip of the toga may represent a long pouch of the colobium
drawn out over the belt, though I know of no other example in which this pouch is so long.3
Still a third offset appears a little above this on the right side; in terms of the usual costume it
can be explained only as the edge of a part of the toga that hangs down in back.4
The toga itself seems to be of the broad, "Eastern"type that we find in two statues of magis-
trates in the Palazzo dei Conservatoriand in statues fromConstantinople,Ephesus and Smyrna.5
The narrow rectangular end which hangs down below the rest of the toga in the center front
is representedin our statue as a perfectly flat surfaceunrelievedby folds or grooves. Whetherthis
end is to be regardedas a piece of the toga itself, as Miss Wilson makes it in her reconstruction
of late Roman togas,6 or whether it is a separate piece, as Delbriick and others have assumed
in their analyses of the toga of the consular diptychs,7is not clear in the present instance. The
toga has a wide sinus, which is drawn across from the proper right side, spread like an apron
over the front of the body and held up by the left hand.8 Part of a long end that hangs down
the back from the left shoulder is also caught up over the left wrist, producing a curve of
drapery on the left side that balances that in front. The balteus, the folded or bunched band
of toga that emergesfrom under the right arm and is drawn across the chest to the left shoulder,
does not fan out over the shoulder as it commonly does in statues of this type," but remains
bunched together. The balteusand the sinus are both sharply offset from the flat area between.
This area is so feebly carved that it scarcely gives the impression of being a part of the toga,
but a comparisonwith the other statues in this scheme shows that it is. The wide flat area on
the properleft side with its vertical boundary correspondsto the group of vertical folds running
up to disappearunder the balteusthat we always find on the left side in such statues, while the
set of feeble catenaries to the right is a reminiscence of the stronger curved folds usual in this
position. In contrast to this lack of emphasis is the prominent ornamental treatment given
to the bit of the edge of the toga that hangs down below the balteusin front of the left arm.1o
80 THE ATHENIAN AGORA: PORTRAIT SCULPTURE
On the right side the wide slit-like sleeve of the colobium,though it is caught up very close
under the armpit by the balteus,droops down below the right elbow. Chippingand weathering
have rendered the edge of the sleeve that crosses the right arm less distinct than that between
the right arm and the body. The rest of the colobiumappearing above the toga is given a very
sketchy treatment. Paint would no doubt have emphasized the faintly marked neckline. A
barely perceptible vertical offset above the right armpit probably represents the edge of a
broad purple stripe, the latus clavus. The bit of cloth that crosses the neckline diagonally on the
left side is presumably the continuation of the rectangular strip that hangs down the center
front.
In his study of the East Roman sculpture of the Theodosianperiod, Kollwitz dates the Agora
statue in the last quarter of the fifth century." There can be little doubt that this stiff, square
figure with its clumsy, shallow carving represents a degeneration from the works assigned by
Kollwitz to the first half of the century. We cannot be sure that the excellent bust of a bearded
man in the Athens National MuseuM'2is Athenian work (the marbleis Parian) but an inscription
recordinga bronze statue set up ca. A.D. 44013 suggests a certain degree of prosperity in Athens
at this time. Our torso, on the other hand, reflects poverty and failing technique. A parallel
contrast may be seen in Corinth between a torso wearing the chlamys dated by Kollwitz to the
early fifth century'4and a later statue in the same scheme made by cutting down a female draped
statue of classical type.15The Agora togatus doubtless stood in or near the Late Roman Gym-
nasium in the Agora near which it was found. Thus the closing of the schools of Athens by
Justinian in the year 529 may represent a sort of terminus ante quem. Kollwitz supports his
dating in the last quarter of the fifth century by a comparison of the figure with that on the
consular diptych of Boethius, of the year 487 (P1. 48, c).16 Specific points of comparison are
the dumpy figure, the sloping shoulders, and the low-drooping right sleeve of the colobium.
He also compares the box-pleat treatment of the edge of the toga in front of the left arm on
our statue with the stylization of the lower edge of the tunic on the Boethius diptych.
The position held by the subject of our statue must remain uncertain. The only inscriptions
that survive in Athens on bases of statues of Roman officials of the fourth and fifth centuries17
honor either the proconsulsof Achaea or praefectipraetorioof Illyricum, both officials who seem
to have worn the chlamys. Absence of the scepter is thought to preclude identification of a
statue as a consul or vir consularis.xsKollwitz remarksthat the praefectusurbi is the only other
official who wears the toga.19It seems unlikely that the praefectusurbi either of Rome or of
Constantinoplewould have had a statue set up in Athens, and it is perhaps safer to assume that
our torso comes from the portrait of an unidentified senator.
The position in which our statue stood seems to have affected its composition. Theunfinished
state of the back and the properright side make it clear that the portrait was intended to occupy
a place in which only the front and the left side were visible. Interest was added to the left side
by the ornamental treatment of the toga edge in front of the left arm and by the curve of
drapery caught up from the back by the left hand. The folds on the right side were correspond-
ingly diminished in importance.
This is probably the latest Athenian statue preserved from antiquity. It is pleasant to find
in it, despite its formulaic stiffness, a spark of Hellenic ingenuity, still ready to rework any
formula to fit the needs of the moment.
1 For a
description of the garments see R. Delbriick, Die Consulardiptychen(Studien zur spatantikenKunstgeschichte,II.
Berlin and Leipzig, 1929), pp. 43-51.
 CATALOGUE 81
2
Cf. J. Kollwitz, OstrnmischePlastik der theodosianischenZeit (Studien zur spatantiken Kunstgeschichte,XII. Berlin,
1941), p. 85 and note 1 for the significance of the scepter; ibid., pls. 24, 27, 31 for visible traces of it.
3 For an example in which the belt is hidden by such a pouch, though a much shorter one, cf. Kollwitz,
op. cit., p. 84,
no. 4 (this part of the clothing is not visible, however, in the views published ibid., pls. 21-22).
4 Cf. Lillian M. Wilson, The Roman Toga (Baltimore, 1924), figs. 66-67, facing p. 106.
5 See Delbriick, op. cit., p. 49, b, fig. 18; Wilson, op. cit., fig. 62; and Kollwitz, op. cit., pls. 16, 20-22, 24-28, 31, 41.
6 Op. cit., pp. 94-115, especially figs. 69, 74.
7
Delbriick, op. cit., p. 45; earlier bibliography, ibid., pp. 44f., note 129.
8 An
early form of this draping occurs on the male figure of the Annona sarcophagus in the Terme (Wilson, op. cit., fig. 54).
1 Cf. Kollwitz, op. cit., p. 91.
10 Cf. Kollwitz, op. cit., p1s. 25-26; Wilson, op. cit., figs. 63, 68 A.
11Op. cit., p. 112.
12
Ibid., pl. 41; Rodenwaldt, Kunst der Antike2 (1930), pl. 685. Athens, N.M. no. 423.
13 1.G.,
II2, 4226.
14
Op. cit., no. 13, pp. 89, 100, pl. 19, 2; Johnson, Corinth, IX, no. 325.
15Kollwitz, op. cit., no. 15, pp. 90, 112, pl. 33; Johnson, Corinth,IX, no. 327.
16
Delbrick, Die Consulardiptychen,no. 7 R; Kollwitz, op. cit., p. 112.
17 1.G., II, 4222: end of 4th century, Rufius Festus, proconsulAchaiae; 4223: A.D. 379-395, Theodoros, proconsulAchaiae;
4224: beginning of 5th century, Herculius, praefectuspraetorioIllyrici; 4225: the same Herculius; 4226: ca. A.D. 440, Probus,
conjectured to be praefectuspraetorioIllyrici.
18
Kollwitz, op. cit., p. 85 and note 1.
19 Loc. cit.

6
 OBSERVATIONS ON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE
IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

I
THE ROMANIZATION OF GREEK PORTRAITS

To the question, "What is Roman in Roman portraits ?" the answermost frequently given is
that Roman portraits are realistic, as contrasted with Greek portraits, which are idealistic.
For those who are conscious of an existing difference and desire only a convenient way of
referringto it, this is a good enough answer. For those, on the other hand, who need to be led
to the recognition of a difference, there is more value in Michalowski'silluminating statement
that a Roman portrait is a document, whereas a Greek portrait is an analysis.' Roman realism
in portraiture consists in accepting and recording as of equal value all that has befallen the in-
dividual man in his existence in time. The sum of these things is the "real" man, and the
faithful representation of such marks of his history as are recorded in his physical appearance
constitutes his portrait in the realistic sense.2 Greek idealism tends to abstract the man from
time in concept even before it is confronted with the necessity of representing him in the
timeless medium of the art of portraiture. Its aim is to represent the permanent character of
the man through the selection of those traits and attributes that best express his nature, his
talents and his position in society. In the purely physical as well as in the psychological aspects
of portrait-making the Greek artist is more analytical than the Roman. For the Greek the
inner organic structure, intellectually understood, is always the necessary frameworkon which
any portrait must be built.3 To the Roman this inner structure is of minor importance as com-
pared with the surface marks that give the impression he wishes to convey.
This documentary surface realism in Roman portraiture seems to be an expression of the
developed Roman character and outlook on life as we meet it in the history of Republican
Rome; it is not descendedfrom any primitive artistic tendencies inherent in the race nor is it to
be derived in the material sense from primitive techniques born on Italian soil. Native Italian
portraiture, insofar as its nature can be understood, seems to employ a non-naturalistic geo-
metrical frameworkfor its portraits and to select for emphasis only a few of the most expressive
elements of the face.4 This can scarcely be termed a realistic portraiturein any sense; anyone
1 Dglos, XIII, p. 30. This is a basic difference in Greek and Roman
ways of thought, not only in their approaches to art.
In a comparison of the histories of Thucydides and Polybios with those of Livy and Tacitus the same distinction appears
with perhaps even more clarity. The Greekhistorian seeks to explain the underlying causes of events; the Roman to reproduce
as vividly as possible the significant moments of the past.
2 Cf. Schweitzer, pp. 11-19. Cf. M. Bieber in A.J.A., LV, 1951, pp. 439ff.
8 Cf. Michalowski, D6los, XIII, p. 29.
* Cf. Zadoks-Jitta, Ancestral Portraiture in Rome, p. 6. G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, R6m. Mitt., XLI, 1926, pp. 133-211
(summarized pp. 201 ff.) calls the basis of Etruscan portraiture (from which he does not distinguish other Italic, p. 133,
note 1) "cubistic" in contrast to the organic basis of Greek portraiture. He regards the "stereometric" style of late anti-
quity as a resurgence of the native cubistic conception, p. 158.
 THE ROMANIZATIONOF GREEK PORTRAITS 83

comparing such a portrait with an organically conceived Greek work would unhesitatingly
proclaim the latter the more realistic of the two. Roman portraits, however, retain none of the
abstract geometrical basis of the native Italic works. If Roman portraiture inherits anything
from the Italic, it is its lack of logic, the absence of a necessary connection between internal
structure and external effect. What structural basis there is in Roman portraits is primarily
Greek. The Romans were not a marble-workingpeople, and it was from the Greeks that they
first learned the habit and the techniques of carving sculpture in marble. Since Roman por-
traiture really began to exist as an art only at the time when these lessons were being learned,
it was inevitable that some of the contemporary, late Hellenistic sculptural tradition should
go into the make-up of the first Roman portraits, whatever may have been the nationality
of the actual sculptors who carved them.5 Thus there was an Hellenic underlay present in the
Roman tradition from its inception; an overlay, in the form of conscious classicism, seems to
have recurred periodically in waves of varying intensity throughout the history of Roman
portraiture." In the intervals between the classicizing phases realism continued to reassert
itself, the periods of strong realism being the Republican, the Flavian and the period from
Maximinus to Decius.7The powerful classicizing movements came first in the Augustan period,
again in the Hadrianic period and finally in the time of Constantine. There seems to have been a
brief classical reaction under Gallienuswhich lasted only for a short time.
Besides the interplay of Roman realism and classicism, three factors might affect the degree
to which Hellenic or Roman elements would predominate in a portrait in the Roman period.
These are: (1) the place where the portrait is made, (2) the nationality of the artist, and (3) the
nationality of the subject. It is due largely, I believe, to the lack of general agreement among
scholars as to the relative importance of these three factors that disputes concerningthe extent
of the dependence of Roman portraiture on Greek can still be carried on with so much vigor.
If we say, for example, that Roman art is really Greek because the artists who produced it
have Greek names,"we are implying that factor (2) is all-important and that (1) is negligible.9
If we go on to say that the reason Roman portraits look different from Greek portraits is that
the Roman subjects had different physiognomies,10we are rating (3) also very high. A more
balancedview is that of Vessberg,who believes that portrait sculpture was originally introduced
into Rome by Greek immigrants but was gradually modified by its new environment and the
new types of faces to be represented." The actual amount of influence exerted by each of these
factors cannot be decided a priori, however; it must be determined experimentally by observa-
tion of as many actual instances as possible in which some or all of the factors are known. For this

5 The question of the nationality of the "Roman" sculptors is one that is currently attracting a considerable amount of
attention. Cf. G. M. A. Richter, "Who Made the Roman Portrait Statues?", Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, XCV, 1951, pp. 184-191, and ThreeCritical Periods, pp. 53-64; J. M. C. Toynbee, CollectionLatomus,VI, pp. 17-33;
Michalowski, B.C.H., LXX, 1946, p. 386, note 2. Whether one emphasizes the continuity of tradition from Greek to Roman
art, as Miss Richter does, or the essential differences between the two, as Michalowski and Schweitzer do, it seems agreed
that most of the sculptors of Roman works who signed their names were Greeks.
8 See especially Rodenwaldt, Arch. Anz., 1931, cols. 319ff.
7 Cf.
L'Orange, Studien, pp. 3f.
s Cf. above, note 5.
9 As against this point of view, the importance of factor (1) is stressed by Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Rdm. Mitt., XLI, 1926,
p. 211: "Mag auch die friihkaiserliche Zeit noch so sehr griechischen Hinden ihr kiinstlerisches Gewand verdanken, so bleibt
doch noch etwas, was neben der Pers6nlichkeit des ausiibenden Kiinstlers wirkt und ihn beeinflult: das Land, in dem er
lebt, die Rasse, fiir die und in deren Gemeinschaft er arbeitet, kurz die Umgebung, die ihn langsam, aber sicher verwandelt,
besonders wenn er, wie der Grieche dieser Zeit, Neues eigentlich nicht mehr zu sagen hat."
10 Richter, Three Critical Periods, p. 60: "But then, why, we may ask, is a Greek head so easily distinguishable from a
Roman one? For the obvious reason, I suggest, that the physiognomies of the sitters were different."
11 Vessberg, p. 174.
6*
84 OBSERVATIONS ON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

purpose the portraits published here are documents of some interest, for we can be sure in
almost every case that the origin of the portrait is local and that the artist was a Greek. We
cannot always be sure whether the subject was a Roman or a Greek,but we are safe in assuming
that the majority of the persons represented are Greeks. In the one case where the identity
of the subject is given in an inscription he is shown to be a native Athenian, though his phy-
siognomy might equally well be that of a Roman.12
The portraitsfrom the Agora excavations which are published here are, of course, only a tiny
fraction of the total mass of Athenian Roman portraits, and Athens itself was only one of many
Greek centers of artistic production that went on producingafter the political control of Greece
had fallen into Roman hands. Yet even a mass of material that is quantitatively so insignificant
may suffice to point out certain concrete facts that affect some of the more basic assumptions
commonly made concerning Greek portraits in the Roman period. The purpose of the present
discussion is primarily to call attention to a few such facts. We cannot, without the risk of
producing more wrong assumptions, go much beyond the immediate conclusions offered by
the Agora portraits themselves, together with certain related portraits which, like them, were
found in Athens.

THE LATEREPUBLICANPERIOD
The first period of Roman portraiture, the Republican period of realism, is undoubtedly the
most important of all for the question of the relation of Roman portraiture to Greek, but the
time is not yet ripe for definite pronouncements concerning it. A solution of the problem can
come only as the result of a comparisonof Greekand Roman works of the period with reference
to a firmly established chronology. The first thoroughgoing attempt that has been made to
establish the chronology of portraiture in the first century B.C. on the Roman side, that of
B. Schweitzer,13 is so recent that one would preferto test it for a while against new and fortui-
tously accruedevidence before accepting it in its entirety as a basis for further conclusions. On
the Greek side hardly even a beginning has been made.14Before a serious chronology can be
established, all the material from all Greek sites that can be assigned to this period needs to be
gathered and subjected to a careful comparative study with a view to relating the pieces one
to another in an intelligible sequence that takes account both of general stylistic trends and of
local workshop practices. Here the Agora excavations can do no more than add to the mass
of material to be studied. The two portraits of the period, Nos. 3 and 4, are interesting because
they reflect two different, distinctly Roman styles. Unfortunately the circumstances of finding
offer not the slightest indication for the date of either.
In the head of a shaven priest, No. 3, the Roman concept of the realistic portrait, as ex-
emplified in such Republican portraits as the old man with covered head in the Vatican,'5 has
been accepted by the Greek artist and applied to a non-Roman subject. Though there are other
Greek portraits that reflect this Roman style,'6 in no other is the traditional Greek structural
basis of the portrait so far abandoned as in the Agora head. The only clue to its date is its general
12 See No. 25 above.
13
Schweitzer, pp. 142ff., chronology to chapters III-IV.
14 E. Buschor, Das hellenistische
Bildnis, is neither complete enough in his collection of material nor clear enough in his
enunciation of the stylistic principles on which he bases his chronology to fill this need.
16 Museo Chiaramonti,no. 135; Schweitzer, p. 73, D 7, figs. 2, 89, 96; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl.
137; Goldscheider, Roman
Portraits, pl. 1; A.B. 451-2.
16 On these portraits see above, pp. 13-14.
 THE ROMANIZATIONOF GREEK PORTRAITS 85

similarity to a head from Corinth (P1.43, c) which must date from after the refoundation of the
city as a Roman colony at the order of Julius Caesarin 45 B.C.7 If one were to assume that the
Roman realistic style of the Republic was a natural product of the development of late Hel-
lenistic portraiture in Greece, one would expect such Roman works as the old man in the
Vatican to be contemporary with, or at any rate not much earlier than the Agora and Corinth
priests, since the Roman works show the perfection of a concept that has hitherto been only
imperfectly realized in Greece. Though we cannot enter here into the question of the dating of
the urban Roman works, so late a date for the "Old Romans" group would raise difficulties,for
it would mean inserting it between the portraits of Pompey, Cicero and Caesar and the early
portraits of Augustus. Thus the Agora priest, though it is itself undated, helps through its
relation to the less well preserved portrait in Corinth which has a definite terminus post quem
to demonstrate the priority of the urban Roman portrait over that of mainland Greece in the
realistic style of the late Republic.
In another way, too, our priest illustrates the relation of Greek realistic portraits of this
period to those of Rome itself. Though the portrait is constituted here, as in the Roman works,
of a complex of external marks, wrinkles, veins and bulges of the flesh, these elements are here
assembled in a much more calculated manner than in the Roman counterparts. Rather than
consulting directly the countenance of his model, the Greek sculptor seems to have been con-
sulting a concept in his own mind of how such things should be done. The origin of this concept
can have lain only in the Roman works themselves and in the demands of the Roman patrons
who commissioned work in Greece. In the Agora priest we have before us Roman realism in a
Greek translation, conscientiously literal but a translation nevertheless. Greek art has not yet
become one with Roman art, though the satisfaction of Roman taste has already become its
goal.
The portrait bust, No. 4, is valuable chiefly because it seems to be dependent on the Roman
style immediately following that from which the priest portrait is derived. It seems not to have
been a very effective work, and its qualities are again best explained on the assumption that the
development of portraiture in Greece at this time was following, not leading, that in Rome
itself. It would seem that in the middle years of the first century B.C. two opposite processes
were going on on the two sides of the Adriatic: at the same time that the Roman portrait was
being Hellenized the Greek portrait was being Romanized. These two processes did not, how-
ever, take the form of an equal exchange. The creative impulse, the need for expression which
demanded art as its medium, was now all on the Roman side, but there was no native tradition
of craftsmanshipto fill this need. It was therefore necessary to borrow from Greece, but there
was no need to borrow only from contemporaryGreece at a time when the Greek artists them-
selves admitted the superiority of their own past. Roman borrowingfrom Greek art in the first
century B.C. tended, in fact, to reverse the original stream of development, looking first to the
Hellenistic tradition for inspiration and turning later to the more remote but more admired
masters of the classical period.'s Greece at this time, on the other hand, was possessed of the
means but not the matter for continuing artistic production. She had a highly developed
language, but she had nothing left to say in it. The perfectly natural consequences of this state
of affairswere, first, that the best Greek artists should migrate to Rome where the best employ-
ment offered itself and, second, that those who remained behind in Greece should look for
17 See above, p. 14, note 12.
18
Cf. Schweitzer, pp. 79ff., 91ff.
86 OBSERVATIONS ON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

inspiration to the capital where the best work was being done. Though these cross-currents
cannot be mapped accurately so long as the chronology remains unsettled, it looks as though
the Greek development lagged a stage behind the Roman until almost the very end of the
century, when the triumphant spread of Augustan art throughout the Empire produced for the
first time an approximation to chronologicalunity. Thus we have seen that the linear realistic
style which flourished in Rome considerably before the middle of the century did not find its
fullest expression in Greece until the forties or later, and we must assume that the modified,
smoother style of our No. 4 is later still. The Hellenistic tradition died hard, and the first half
of the century seems to have been devoted largely to its final throes. Such Roman influences as
can be detected in that period are only skin-deep.19In view of the late date of Republican
realism in Greece, it seems unlikely that the partially Hellenized Roman style represented by
the portraits of Pompey, Ciceroand Caesarcan have had much effect in Greecebefore the time
of Augustus, when the gap between Greek and Roman art was already beginning to close.

THE AUGUSTAN PERIOD

Some idea of the relation of contemporary Greek portraiture to Augustan classicism may be
formed from a very brief survey of several portraits of Augustus himself which were found and
presumably made in Greek cities. They are:
1. Athens. Head found in the Roman Agora (Stavropoulos, Ah-rTiov,1930-1, TTapapT-rWa, p. 9,
fig. 8; Hekler, Arch. Anz., 1935, cols. 399f., figs. 3-4).
2. Corinth. Toga statue from the Julian Basilica (P1. 43,f; Swift, A.J.A., XXV, 1921, pp.
142ff., pls. 5-7; Johnson, Corinth,IX, p. 71, no. 134).
3. Saloniki. Heroic statue (Arch.Anz., 1940, col. 261, figs. 71-73),
4. Delos. Colossalhead (Michalowski,Delos, XIII, pl. 20).
5. Samos. Head in Vathy (Wiegand, Ath. Mitt., XXV, 1900, pp. 166f., no. 37).
6. Samos. Head in Tigani (P1.43, g; Crome,Das Bildnis Vergils,figs. 54-55).
7. Pergamon. Head now in Istanbul (Michalowski,B.C.H., LXX, 1946, pl. 20).
8. Cos. Head in Antiquarium (L. Laurenzi, Clara Rhodos,IX, 1938, p. 63, fig. 41).
All these portraits except for the head in Vathy, which has the hair arrangementof Brendel's
Type B,20 and the colossal head in Delos, which is too much destroyed to permit identification
of the type, show the special arrangementof locks over the forehead that is characteristicof the
Prima Porta Type (P1.43, e).21 The Vathy head is presumably earlier and the Delos head may
be so.
An easily recognizable and almost constant feature of Augustan classicism is the treatment
of the eyebrows as simple arrises formed by the sharp intersection of planes, without rounding
or plastic indication of the hairs. This deliberate renunciation of the illusion of flesh harks back
19E.g. the portrait of a man in the Athens National Museum, no. 320 (A.B. 885-6; Lawrence, Later GreekSculpture, pl.
59 b; Schweitzer, fig. 81), which Schweitzer dates to the second quarter of the century. The head from the Theater Quarter
in Delos (Michalowski,Delos, XIII, pls. 23-24) may belong also to the second quarter of the century, though Michalowski,
op. cit., p. 63, places it between 90 and 70 B.C.
20 Brendel,
Ikonographiedes Kaisers Augustus, pp. 31 ff.
21 The
type is generally dated between 20 and 10 B.C. because of the representation on the cuirass of the recovery of the
standards from the Parthians in 20 B.C. Brendel, op. cit., p. 61, dates the types that precede the Prima Porta type 30-15
B.C., so that for him the latter must come after 15. L. Curtius, Rim. Mitt., LV, 1940, p. 58, on the other hand, sees the
developed Prima Porta type of head first in the As of the Mintmaster C. Asinius Gallus of 22 B.C. and in three-quarter view
in the imago clipeata of the denarius of 16 B.C.
 THE ROMANIZATIONOF GREEK PORTRAITS 87
to the fifth century B.C., and it is one of the features that give Julio-Claudianportraits their
look of cool clarity. Especially in portraits of Augustus himself the eyebrows tend to be straight
and level, their curvature being less than that of the upper eyelid. Such eyebrows are found in
all the Roman portraits of Augustus, even those assigned to the earliest types. In the portrait
from Pergamon and the two from Samos the eyebrowsinstead of being level curve sharply down
at the outer ends following the strong curve of the upper eyelids. In this the artists are following
Hellenistic tradition, and the characteristically Hellenistic "pathetic" look of these East Greek
heads is due in part to this feature. Looking at these three heads one cannot escape the feeling
that Augustan classicism was an alien plant that was slow to take root on the eastern side of
the Aegean.
The three mainland portraits are closer to Roman style. That is to say, they are as cold as
any Roman works; none of the Hellenistic life and passion survives in them. On the other hand,
they can scarcely be said to be more truly classicistic than the Roman works of which they are
feeble reflections. In the PrimaPorta statue classicismis a formal style employed to lend dignity
and universality to a work whose strength lies in character. The mainland Greek portraits we
are considering lack strength and character altogether. In them classicism becomes an empty
formula. Again one has the impression that Augustan classicism was not a living tradition in
Greece. It seems to have been as alien, as essentially Roman in its values, as the realism that
preceded it. The forms were accepted more readily in places like Athens and Corinthwhere the
Roman influence was dominant (Corinthwas actually a Roman colony and the sculptors who
made her marble statues may well have come from Athens) than they were farther east where
the great centers of Hellenistic art had been, but the ideas were not so easily assimilated even
here. Nevertheless, though Greek Augustan art seems to have produced no portraits of real
grandeur, some quite respectable and attractive work was done. The portrait head of a young
prince from the Royal Gardensin Athens, identified as Gaius Caesar,22is as graceful and charm-
ing as the Corinthianportrait of the same prince is stodgy.23 The bust from the Athenian Agora,
No. 7, which is so much influenced by the portraits of Augustus that it is difficult to be sure
that it is not Augustus, is a lively, energetic portrait; it escapes dullness in spite of obvious
reflections of classicism in the carving of the eyebrows and the mouth and the very stiff treat-
ment of the hair.

II
ATHENIAN PORTRAITS IN THE STYLE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

By the end at least of the Augustan period Roman style in portraitureseems to have attained
approximate unity throughout the Empire. From here on until the third century when a new
kind of gap between East and West begins to open up, the development of portraiturein Greece
apparently followed that of Rome with little deviation except for a slight lag in time. Greece
had become an artistic province of the Roman Empire, and so far as we can ascertain no
significant new developments were initiated there. The quality of Athenian portraits seems to
have gone up and down with the economic prosperity of the city; the flourishingHadrianic and
early Antonine periods produced some works that may be ranked with or even above the
22 Poulsen, Rbmische Privatportrtts und Prinzenbildnisse, p. 39, pl. 37, and Hekler, Arch. Anz., 1935, col. 403, figs. 5-6.
28 E. H. Swift, A.J.A., XXV, 1921, pl. 10; F. P. Johnson, Corinth, IX, p. 72, no. 135.
88 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

contemporary products of Rome herself,' but by the early third century Athenian portraiture
had sunk again to the level of mere competence. No contemporary Athenian portraits can
comparewith the Caracallain Berlin2or the Philip in the Vatican.3
In the course of the first and second centuries Roman portraitureswung from classicism back
to realism and then back again to classicism, and each time the Greeks followed along behind.
In Greece as in Rome Flavian portraits often show a strong resemblance to types from the
Republican period. A portrait from the Agora, No. 18, is a particularly good example of this.
Not only did Greece not remain an island of classicism during the times when realism domi-
nated in Roman portraiture; even after the advent of Hadrianic classicism she was slow to
abandon altogether the old Flavian types. In the herm portrait of Moiragenes, No. 25, the
carved pupils and engraved irises of the eyes show that the work must belong to the time of
Hadrian, and yet the general facial type is derived from the realistic Roman style of the late
Flavian age. We find it in its earlier stages in two Agora portraits, Nos. 18 and 19, the first
probably dating from the time of Nerva and the second from that of Trajan.
It is true, however, that certain classicizing types occur in Greece independently of any
general classicism in the period to which they belong. The choice of these types is motivated
not so much by artistic taste as by the desire to emphasize the continuity of certain institutions
and to show their modern exponents as bearers of the great traditions of the past. Thus the
principal classical types that occur are ephebes and philosophers.The ephebes combine portrait
elements with imitation of classical athlete types; the result is a series of generalized portraits
that are less differentiatedfrom one another than straight portraits would be.4 The first century
portrait, No. 14, from the Agora shows this influence, but such portraits are more frequent
later, especially in the third century when Athens' cult of her own past went to extravagant
lengths. The philosopher portraits sometimes imitate the cut of the hair and beard of some
famous philosophertype of the classical or Hellenistic period, and it is probably fair to assume
that a man would choose the type of one of the founders or great men of the philosophical
school to which he himself belonged.5It may be, however, that in many cases a more general
type was created, in which a beard, long hair, and a thoughtful brow marked the subject as a
philosopherwithout attaching him specifically to any school.6We can only guess at the extent
to which philosophers of Roman times actually assimilated their everyday appearance to that
of their great models. Probably the length of hair and beard was genuine, and the portraitist
saw to it that its arrangement conformed to the desired type. I do not know of any such
classicized philosopherportraits definitely assignable to the first century after Christ,but about
the time of Hadrian, when beards were generally worn again and when philosophy, along with
all things Hellenic, became the height of fashion, such types began to appear,' and they con-
1
E.g. the Hadrian from the Olympieion (P1. 45) and the early Antonine portrait from the Theater of Dionysos, the so-
called "Christ" (Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 261; A.B. 301-2).
2
Bltimel, RbmischeBildnisse, R 96, pls. 59-60; C.A.H., Plates, V, pl. 168 b.
3 Hekler, op. cit., pl. 293.
SSee above, No. 47 and note 4.
1 Cf. the
portrait of a kosmetes, Graindor, Cosmvtes,no. 27, p. 363, fig. 28, which reflects the portraits of Antisthenes and
leads Graindor to the conclusion that the man represented is a Cynic, and the portrait from Delphi, Poulsen, B.C.H., LII,
1928, pls. 14-16, which shows a resemblance to the portraits of Plato, especially in the cut of the beard, and so may represent
a follower of the Platonic School. The latter portrait is early Antonine (cf. L'Orange, Studien, p. 6 f., note 2), not Gallienian
as Poulsen suggested.
6 The portrait of Herodes Atticus in the Louvre, A.B. 1196-7; Paribeni,
pl. 310; Schefold, Bildnisse, p. 181, no. 2; Graindor,
HgrodeAtticus, p. 132, figs. 7-8, may serve as an example. Cf. Richter, Three Critical Periods, pp. 60f.
7 Cf. the portrait of the Platonist Theon of Smyrna, whose portrait Schefold dates, probably rightly, to the Hadrianic
period (Schefold, op. cit., p. 181, no. 3; Richter, op. cit., p. 60, fig. 137).
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITS IN THE STYLE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 89
tinued in use even in the third century after the emperors and the general Roman public had
gone back to short-cut hair and stubble beards.8 As in the case of the ephebes, the classical
philosopher types seem to have been particularly popular in the third century.9 It is probable
that by that time the philosophical guise was affected by many who had little if any real claim
to it.
These classicizing portraits have perhaps attracted more than their proper share of attention
in general estimates of Greek portraiture in Roman times.'0 They are so obviously Greek that
they make the problem of distinguishing Greek style from Roman appear simpler than it
actually is. Yet they perhaps do point the way to the recognition of a real difference which
exists elsewherein a form much less easy to perceive. The willingness to submergethe individu-
ality of the subject in a general type that appears here is something quite un-Roman, and it
may be that the basic attitude of the Greeks toward portraiture was never so thoroughly
Romanized as were the forms of the portraits themselves. It may even be that a number of
Greek portraits which appear at first glance to be highly individual appear so only because they
employ Roman types. The Agora portraits support this suggestion in two respects. First, the
series formed by Nos. 18, 19 and 25, all showing the same fairly simple compositionalframework
in spite of the marked differencesin handling of the surface, suggests that the artist still con-
ceived his portrait within the limits of a simple basic type which he then altered to fit the
individual subject. Second, the fact that several private portraits, including Nos. 18 and 19,
seem to have been influenced by the physiognomy of the reigning emperor implies a further
willingness to modify the features of the sitter in conformity with a preconceived notion of
what was desirable in a portrait. Besides No. 18, which shows affinities with the portraits of
Nerva, and No. 19, which has modified the type in the direction of those of Trajan, we may
mention No. 37, with its obvious reflections of the portraits of Caracalla,No. 38, which bears
some resemblanceto those of Elagabalus, and perhaps, if it does not really represent Augustus
himself, No. 7, which is so bewilderingly similar to the portraits of that emperor.
When we couple with this tendency of Greek private portraits to reflect current imperial
types the greaterfreedom with which the Greeksoften treated the imperialportraits themselves,
it is not surprisingthat there are many cases of disputed identity among Greek portraits of the
Imperial period. The natural reluctance of scholars to permit a portrait to remain anonymous
once it has attracted their interest has resulted in a number of identifications which find their
way into the literature of imperial portraits only to be rejected again by more critical students
of iconography."
Yet another kind of difference, slight and subtle yet all-pervading, exists between Roman
portraits made in Athens and those made in Rome itself, even at the time when Greece was
following Rome most closely. The surface of the marble seems somehow more alive than in the
average Roman work, and the carving of the details less hard and mechanical. In this lies the
one direct link with the great age of Greek sculpture: the marble is still Pentelic and the hand
that holds the chisel is still Athenian. The tradition, though degenerate, is unbroken, and the
confidence born of long familiarity with his tools and his material seems to have given the

8 E.g. the kosmetai, Graindor, Cosmetes,nos. 20, 21 and 28.

9 This is shown by their occurrence during this period among the portraits of the kosmetai. The conjunction of the classi-
cizing philosopher type with pankratiast's ears in nos. 20 and 21 is interesting, though probably not incongruous from the
Greek point of view.
10 Cf. Poulsen's article,
"Sengraeske Portraetter", KunstmuseetsAarskrift, 1929-31, pp. 16-44.
11 The
Agora has contributed its share of such identifications. Cf. Nos. 7, 17 and 28.
90 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

average Athenian sculptor a freedom that his Roman counterpart lacked. So, though the best
Athenian portraits of the Roman period rarely compare with the best that Rome herself
produced, the mediocre ones are never quite so dull as those that now fill the Roman museums.
A hastily made Athenian portrait seems impressionistic rather than crude. Since it is creative
power rather than technical skill that the Athenian artist now lacks, those portraits which are
most ambitious in scale are often least effective,12and, conversely, it is with quite minor works,
such as the head of a woman from a relief, No. 13, that we sometimes feel closest to the Hellenic
past.
12 No. 17 is an extreme
example. In No. 28 the excellence of the technique so far exceeds the general effectiveness of the
portrait that one feels disappointed with the work in spite of the fact that it is well above average in general quality.

III

ATHENIAN PORTRAITS OF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER

Though none of the Agora portraits that can be assigned to the third century after Christ
comes from a closely datable context, the Agora excavations have established one point which
affects materially the existing chronology of late Athenian portraiture and, with it, our present
picture of Greece's role in the transition to Late Classical art.' As a result of their own con-
sistently late dating of Greek works that seem to stand on the threshold to Late Classical art,
scholars have tended fo assume that Greek sculptors even in the fourth century of our era
retained to a much greater degree than did their Roman and Eastern contemporaries the
interest in and ability to render plastic form in which Greek art had always excelled.2 The
revision of the chronology that is required by the new archaeologicalevidence shows that such
is not the case.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE

Prominent among the works supposed to illustrate this survival of plasticity is the head of a
young man (P1. 46, a), found along with the portraits of the kosmetai in the filling of the
"Valerian Wall" and commonly dated by students of sculpture to the reign of Constantine.3
1 The term "Late Classical" is here used in the sense in which it is used
by Rodenwaldt in his chapter entitled "The
Transition to Late-Classical Art" in C.A.H., XII, pp. 544-570 (see p. 544, note 2 and pp. 561 ff. for a definition of the term,
which translates the frequently used German term "spitantike," and a statement of the essential qualities of Late Classical
art). His chapter covers the development of Roman art from the time of Septimius Severus through that of Constantine
(193-324), but Rodenwaldt dates the "transition" proper to the years A.D. 275-300, the accession of Diocletian (285) being
taken as the beginning of the Late Classical (ibid., p. 562). The precursors of the Late Classical, however, begin around A.D.
222, when the early third century style which continues the Antonine tradition (I should like to coin the term "Sub-Antonine"
for this period) is replaced by a radically different style (cf. ibid., pp. 545 and 563).
2 The
prevalent view is eloquently expressed by K. Michalowski, B.C.H., LXX, 1946, p. 390: "Le fait incontestable,
attest6 par les monuments, c'est qu'en cette p6riode, au d6clin de 1'empireromain, la Graceencore une fois excella dans l'art,
avec cet ensemble particulier de valeurs qui distingue la production plastique n6e sur son sol de celle qui se d6veloppe au m~me
moment tant en Occident qu'en Orient ..... Nous poss6dons plusieurs totes-portraits de l'6poque de Constantin le Grand,
provenant de Grace, dont le style contraste au plus haut point avec le froid classicisme, inspir des moddles august6ens,
qui regnait ailleurs dans l'art de ce temps."
3 Graindor,Cosmetes,no. 33, pp. 378f., pl. 26; L'Orange, Studien, p. 57, cat. no. 85, figs. 161, 162.
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITSOF THE THIRD CENTURYAND AFTER 91
So late a dating has been considered possible because scholars have continued to believe that
the "ValerianWall" was built in the fifteenth century and so can provide no useful terminus
ante quem for the ancient sculpture that was found built into its core.4 Now, however, the
excavations of the Athenian Agora, through which the wall runs, have shown that it was built
around A.D. 280, to fortify the city of Athens against the event of another incursion such as
that of the Heruli which had laid waste the Agora in the year 267.5
Only if it could be shown that the section of the wall in which the portraits were found was
not part of the original structure but a later repair would it be possible to assign a later date to
any of the heads. All the evidence, however, is against such an assumption. The construction
of the wall in which the portraits and the ephebic inscriptions were found, as described in the
original excavation report,is the same as that of the "ValerianWall" in general: the rectangular
blocks, including the stelai and the herm shafts, were used to form the outer facings of the wall,
and the irregularly shaped pieces, including the portrait heads, were thrown into the filling."
The heads of the kosmetai are for the most part excellently preserved (many actually have their
noses intact), and it looks very much as though the heads had been struck off from their herms
for the specific purpose of using the latter in the facing of the wall. The "Constantinian"head
is among the best preserved of all.
None of the inscriptions from this part of the wall has been dated later than 267. It would
seem, indeed, that the ephebic training in Athens lasted only for a very short time after the
Herulian invasion. The latest known Athenian ephebic inscription (found not in the wall, but
in two wells in the Agora) shows letter forms very similar to those of inscriptions dated just
before267 and is probably to be dated around 275.7 There is no proof that all the portrait heads
found in the filling of the wall at St. Demetrios Katephoris represent kosmetai or ephebes, but
since no inscriptions belonging to other types of portraits were found with them, there is every
probability that they do. Hence even if the wall could not be dated it would seem unlikely that
any of these heads could be so late as A.D. 325, fifty years later than the latest Athenian
ephebic inscription.
Once it is clear that none of the portraits of kosmetai can be later than around 280 we have
next to decide what is the actual date of the latest piece. Certainlyit is likely that very few of
the portraits are to be placed after 267. In the period of insecurity and economic distress that
followed upon the barbarian invasion portrait sculpture seems to have become a luxury that
the private citizen could rarely afford.8The base belonging to a portrait of the historian Dexip-

1
For the fullest statement of this view, accepted by Judeich, Topographie2,p. 165, see G. Guidi, "Il muro Valeriano a
S. Demetrio Katiphori e la questione del Diogeneion," Annuario, IV-V, 1921-22, pp. 33-54.
5 Cf. T. L. Shear, Hesperia, IV, 1935, pp. 332 ff., where the latest coin found in the footing-trench is said to be one of
Probus (A.D. 276-282), and Hesperia, VII, 1938, p. 332, where a hoard of sixteen coins, the latest being one of Probus, is
described as found in a layer of mortar immediately under the wall. On the latter cf. also W. B. Dinsmoor, Hesperia, IX, 1940,
p. 52, note 121. Eugene Vanderpool informs me that he believes the wall was constructed around 280. Graindorbelieved that
the wall was built in the 15th century (op. cit., p. 241, note 4). L'Orange does not state his beliefs, but must also have followed
this view.
6
1861,pp. 18f.
Ipai-rw•K•,
7 Agora Inv. I 231. J. Oliver, Hesperia,
II, 1933, pp. 505f., no. 17; republished with additional fragments, Hesperia, XI,
1942, pp. 71f., no. 37. The provenience of the new fragments is given, through a misprint, as Section Pi. Actually they are
from Section Gamma on the west side of the Agora adjacent to Section Delta in which the first fragments were found. Pro-
fessor Oliver informs me that he still dates this inscription around 275 and that it is undoubtedly the latest Athenian ephebic
inscription preserved.
8 See
Day, EconomicHistory, pp. 258f., for a summary of the economic situation following the invasion of the Heruli. There
are a few inscriptions honoring Diocletian and Maximianus (I.G., II, 3421, 3422, 5202) and L'Orangehas identified a portrait
in the Athens National Museum as Diocletian (Studien, p. 103, cat. no. 53, figs. 98, 99), but I know of no inscription from a
portrait of a private person belonging to the last quarter of the third century or the beginning of the fourth.
92 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

pos, which was set up by his sons, apparently soon after the completion of his Chronikain
A.D. 269/70, represents one of the latest examples known to us.9 The area of the Agora itself
seems to have lain in ruins for many years following its destruction at the hands of the Heruli
and it is unlikely that any statues were set up there during this period. This considerationhas
been invoked by H. A. Thompson in favor of a pre-Herulian date for the Agora portrait of a
young man, No. 51, which was found built into a mill-race of the fifth century on the east side
of the Agora.1oIt has never been determined where the portraits of the kosmetai originally
stood. The commonest supposition is that they were set up in the gymnasium known as the
Diogeneion, since some of the ephebic lists found at St. Demetrios Katephoris indicate that
copies were to be set up in the Diogeneion. On this basis the Diogeneion has been tentatively
located in the vicinity of St. Demetrios." G. Guidi, on the other hand, argues that portraits
and ephebe lists were set up in the Agora itself,12but since his theory remains only an hypo-
thesis, it cannot be proved that the portraits of the kosmetai stood in a part of the city that was
wrecked in 267, and the date of their inclusion in the "Valerian Wall" is the only definite
terminusantequemfor their erection.13
There seems to be no doubt that the invasion, though ultimately repelled by the Greeks
under the leadership of Dexippos, dealt a mortal blow to the moderate prosperity that Athens
had enjoyed in the mid third century. The cessation of the export of Attic sarcophagi'4and the
disappearance of sculptured grave stelai'5 at about this time show to what extent sculptural
output was affected.'"The question that immediately concerns us is: was the effect instantan-
eous or delayed? Certain bits of evidence suggest that several years passed before the worst
effects were felt. First among these is the ephebic list mentioned above, which must be post-
Herulian in any case and may be as late as 275.1' The close similarity of the rather pretentious
style of engravingto that which we find in the list to be dated in 262/318sshows that pre-Herulian
standards had not yet collapsed. In the case of sculpture we have the Dexippos base to show
that at least one portrait was set up at private expense soon after the invasion. It will be seen
below that the style of the latest ephebe head from the "Valerian Wall" and that of certain
heads in the "philosopher"group discussed below (P1.47, a and b) would best fit a date roughly
parallel to that of the latest ephebic inscription.'9 These heads, which do not yet show the
decline in technique that becomes apparent in Athenian works of the last quarter of the third
century, are probably the work of some of the better sculptors of the pre-invasion period who
survived the competition for the few commissionsthat were available in the years that followed.
g I.G., 112, 3669; Graindor,Album, no. 105, p. 72, pl. 83.
10 See above, 66.
p.
11
Judeich, Topographie2.p. 379, calls this location "quite uncertain."
12
Op. cit., above, note 4.
13None of the portraits shows signs of burning, and in general their excellent state of preservation suggests that they
stood intact until they were decapitated for inclusion in the wall.
14 Rodenwaldt, Jahrb., XLV, 1930, p. 186.
15 A.
Miihsam, Die attischenGrabreliefsin r6mischerZeit, p. 57. Riemann, Kerameikos,II, p. 50 postulates a Post- Gallienian
date for two grave-stelai: Kerameikos P 190 (ibid., no. 46, pl. 15) and Conze, no. 2042, pl. 444, on the basis of comparison with
portraits, but the portrait of a priest from Eleusis (P1. 46,e) which he cites is little, if at all, later than the time of Gallienus
(see below, pp. 101-102) and his tetrarchic parallels are not really convincing. There may have been a few post-Herulian grave-
stelai made in Athens, but these last few were doubtless made in the years immediately following the invasion.
"1 Some sculptors' workshops were actually destroyed in the sack: cf. the workshop in the Library of Pantainos mentioned
above, p. 49. The industrial district to the southwest of the Agora, destroyed by the Heruli and not rebuilt until late in the
fourth century (R. S. Young, Hesperia, XX, 1951, p. 284) doubtless contained a number of sculptors' workshops.
17 See
above, note 7.
18
1.G., II, 2245; Graindor,Album, no. 104, p. 70, pl. 82; formerly dated either 262/3 or 266/7, now dated by Notopoulos
(Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, p. 41) in 262/3.
19 See below, pp. 99-105.
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITSOF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER 93

THE EARLY THIRD CENTURY (A.D. 200-235)

The necessity of redating the latest of the kosmetai carrieswith it the necessity of revising the
whole picture of third century portrait sculpture in Athens. To carry out such a revision in
detail is beyond the scope of this work, but in order to date the Agora pieces that fall into the
period in question I have had to assume its main outlines. To complete such a picture it is
necessary to establish the relation of the known Athenian works to one another as well as to the
imperial portraits on which the absolute chronology is for the most part based. Attractive
parallels drawn between individual Athenian and Roman portraits are of little value if they
result in separating pieces which, when set side by side, look like contemporary products of a
single workshop.
Only one of the portraits of the kosmetai that belong to the third century is epigraphically
dated. This is G 20, the herm of an unknown kosmetes set up in the archonship of Kasianos
Hierokeryx in 238/9.20 Another, G 21, resemblesit so closely that its date must be virtually the
same. It seems to represent a somewhat younger man and the execution is more careful, but the
type is the same and the two men look so much alike that they might be brothers. These two
works are not so helpful as one might wish. At first glance, indeed, they seem to stand com-
pletely outside the main stream of development of late Roman portraiture, so strong is the
influence on them of the classical Greek tradition. For the dated portrait Graindorinvokes in
comparisonthe portrait of Thucydides,21L'Orangethat of Lysias.22For us the important thing
is the residue of contemporary style that remains when the classical elements are abstracted.
The eyes are unaffected by classicism and are quite similar in the two heads, flat and almond-
shaped with thin, narrow lids. In both portraits the surface of the face is rasped. The drill is
used freely in the hair and beard but no longer in the Antonine "coloristic" manner in which
numerous unconnected channels perforate and darken the mass; the coarse furrows now serve
rather to emphasize with their heavy black lines the drawing of the individual locks. This use
of the drill, which may be seen on contemporary sarcophagi, becomes increasingly common in
relief sculpture as the century progresses. It occurs more rarely in portraiture because the
short-cut hair that was fashionable gave little opportunity for its use, but many sarcophagi
show such linear drilling in the hair of classicistic symbolic figures while the portrait figures
beside them have undrilled short hair.23
These two heads prove that men with philosophical or literary pretensions might wear their
hair and beards long even when the Emperorand the majority of his subjects were more closely
shorn and shaven. For the long-haired members of the company of the kosmetai it will be
necessary to consider not merely the cut of the hair and beard but also the technique by which
these are rendered. Some pieces clearly represent a continuation of the Antonine tradition. The
alert-looking kosmetes G 14, dated by Graindor to the time of Septimius Severus, is such a
piece. The coarse drill-channelsand lumpy locks of hair find a parallel in an early portrait of
Caracalla from Corinth.24The relatively short beard may reflect the mode introduced by
20
Graindor,Cosmetes,no. 20. From here on, referencesto portraits of kosmetai published by Graindorin this article will be
designated simply by the initial G followed by the number of the portrait in his series. For the most recent dating of the
archon Kasianos Hierokeryx, see J. Notopoulos, Hesperia, XVIII, 1949, p. 40.
21
Cosmites, p. 351.
22 Studien, p. 10.
23 Rodenwaldt, Jahrb., LI, 1936, pls. 3-6. On the origins and development of "colorism," of which this outlining with the
drill is also a form, see E. H. Swift, Roman Sources of ChristianArt, pp. 161-194.
24Askew, A.J.A., XXXV, 1931, pp. 442-7; Arch. Anz., 1930, col. 105, fig. 6.
94 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD
Caracalla (A.D. 211-217), though the Antonine technique survives in the vermicular drilling
among its curls. The eyes, wide, clear and crisply drawn, recall those of the Agora head No. 37,
in which the resemblance to portraits of Caracallais marked. The neat and amiable kosmetes
G 26 must likewise belong to this group. Here the use of the drill is more subdued than in G 14
but less so than in the Agora portrait. The smooth surface of the face, probably originally
polished, is more usual for this period than the rasped surface of G 14. Rasping becomes more
common, however, as time goes on. To this group should be added, perhaps as a somewhat
later representative, the kosmetes G 16, which Graindordates to the time of Caracalla.
The smoothness of face remains in the Agora portrait No. 38 which seems to reflect the por-
traits of Elagabalus (A.D. 218-222). Note that even here, where we have a young man rep-
resented, the hair is longer than in the imperial mode of the day. Increasing reliance on chisel-
work and less use of the drill are observablein the hair. The remarkablyunintelligent expression
of the face cannot be charged to style; it must belong primarily to the individual portrayed.
Nevertheless, it would appear that the Late Severan style in Athens as in Rome tended to
replace the energetic alertness of Caracallan portraits with a more insipid, sometimes even
sentimental expression. L'Orangehas characterizedthe Late Severan style as one in which the
smoothed surfaces of the face run together without plastic definition of the various parts.25
This general characterization seems entirely correct, but I believe that L'Orange has gone
astray in his identification of the Greek exponents of the style. If we make such heads as the
ephebe with the stupid face, G 22, (P1.46, b),26 follow directly on works of the time of Caracalla,
we are left with several kosmetai who have nowhere to go. This group, which I should like to
place in the Late Severan period, consists of G 27, G 17, G 18, and G 29. L'Orange, since he
considered only a selected few of the kosmetai, did not worry about these. Graindorscattered
them through the century, two in the post-Herulian period.27 They all have longish hair and
beards; the faces are generally polished and the expressions are inclined to be melancholy or
sentimental. Though the hairy overgrowth leaves comparatively little free area in which the
characteristic Late Severan fluidity of surface may manifest itself, there is in all these heads a
continuous sweep across the upper part of the nose and into the planes of the cheeks below the
eyes that seems to belong to this style. The hair and beard show in varying degrees the last
remnants of Antonine technique. One of the earliest of the group must be the "Cynic" G 27,
whose tempestuous locks show elaborate and varied chisel work enlivened here and there with
the drill. We have compared this portrait with Agora No. 38, the young man who resembles
Elagabalus. Next comes G 18 with a rather tamer treatment of the beard and with less abun-
dant hair (this is an older man) but with the same technical means employed in about the same
proportions. G 17 still shows drill channels in the sides of the beard, but no longer in the hair.
G 29, finally, abandons the drill altogether, and the chiselwork is more superficial, though the
eyes and the modelling of the polished face still link it with the foregoing portraits. There is no
means of fixing the date of the termination of this style in Athens. We know only that G 20, the
kosmetes of 238/9, shows a different style in the face, though the shape of the beard is much
the same.
The fine herm portrait from the Agora, No. 39, must come fairly early in the Late Severan
period, for it retains the alive, expressive quality of portraits of the time of Caracalla.The hair
25
Studien, p. 1.
2e Ibid., p. 12, cat. no. 8, figs. 20, 22.
27 G 27 (dated vaguely in the second half of the century, but with parallels cited from the end of the century) and 29
(period of Claudius Gothicus, 268-270).
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITSOF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER 95
still recalls Antonine work in the plastic relief given to the locks, though the drill is used very
sparingly. The face has been worked over with a fine rasp, a practice that we have already met
in the kosmetes G 14.
Only one kosmetes wears his hair in the mode of Alexander Severus, and this one, G 25, is
regularly compared by scholars with portraits of the young Gallienus!28 The hair is here quite
short, though still not so short as in the Roman counterpart, and is renderedwith fine parallel
chisel-strokes, a technique mid-way between the longer chisel-carved locks such as those of
Agora No. 38 and the scattering of little curved strokes in a roughened surface exemplified by
Agora Nos. 44 and 45.29 The specific influence of the portrait of Alexander Severus (222-235) on
G 25 is apparent in the direction of the hair over the forehead, swept to the right from a parting
above the left eye across the center,and down on the right side, forming a continuous arch, not
an abrupt angle, above the right eye.30The formation of the forehead, concave above the pro-
jecting ridge of the eyebrows, is very close to that in a portrait of Alexander Severus in the
Louvre.31 The very smooth face links this kosmetes with the group we have discussed, but the
carving of the eyes is closer to that in G 20 and G 21 (the kosmetes of 238/9 and his "brother").32
The short, curly chin-strap beard of the kosmetes is, of course, the element that has given rise
to the Gallienian comparisons, but actually it does not grow down on the neck in the true
Gallienian fashion. Though the head of the kosmetes is broken off just below the chin, the
difference is readily apparent when one compares its side view with that of the youthful
Gallienusin Berlin.33In the former the edge of the beard runs straight down from the ear along
the line of the junction between the head and the neck; in the latter it turns back to cover part
of the neck itself. The amount of surface covered by the beard of the kosmetes is about the
same as in the portraits of Caracallaand Alexander Severus; the differenceis that the Athenian
has let his grow a little longer. The degree of curliness varies with the person, not simply with
the date.

REALISM (A.D. 235-253)

The period of Maximinus Thrax (235-238) inaugurates a new trend in Roman portraiture,
one that has been characterizedas a return to the old Roman realism.34To express this in terms
of the marble rather than of the spirit, we might say that the linear emphasis which hitherto
has appeared only in the features now invades the flesh of the face, so that, whereas formerly
the clearly delineated features floated in an undifferentiated expanse, they are now drawn
together by a taut pattern of lines and folds. The composition of the face depends less and less
on plastic forms and more and more on these lines, which are effective principally in the front
plane of the face. At the same time the expression of the eyes is further emphasized, and slack
sentimentality gives way to a worried intensity. In many works of the period a deliberate
asymmetry accentuates the impressionof realism. Few Greekportraits of this period succeed in
28 L'Orange, Studien, p. 13, cat. no. 10, figs. 24, 28; G. Bovini, Mon. Ant., XXXIX, 1943, col. 254.
29 Strokes of about the same length, though coarser, are to be seen in a head of Alexander Severus in Cairo (Graindor,
Bustes et statues-portraitsd'Agypteromaine, no. 19, pl. 18). This head also shows the same pattern in the direction of the hair
on the side of the head as does our kosmetes.
Cf., besides the head in Cairo, above, note 29, the portrait in the Vatican, L'Orange, Studien, figs. 1, 3, and one in the
0so
Louvre, Goldscheider,Roman Portraits, pl. 81.
31 See
above, note 30.
32 Two heads of little
boys from the Agora, Nos. 41 and 42, and the head of a somewhat older boy in the Athens National
Museum (no. 511) are close to G 25 and must be of about the same date.
S3Blimel, Rimische Bildnisse, R 114, pl. 74.
34 L'Orange, Studien, p. 3.
96 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

exploiting fully the expressive possibilities of the Roman style.35 The Agora head of a shaven
priest, No. 43, is unusual in this respect and must be the work of a sculptor who had closer
contact with Rome than had most of his contemporaries. G 20, the kosmetes of 238/9, shows
only traces of the new style. It has the deep irregularwrinkles in the forehead. The eyebrows
are heavily emphasizedand the narrow eyes looking up from under them are more like those of
Maximinus or Philip than like those of earlier portraits. Close to the two "brothers" G 20 and
G 21 but showing more of contemporary style and less of classicism is the flat-faced old man
G 19. In the form and distribution of the wrinkles, in the shape and carving of the eyes, and
even in the direction of the glance, there is a close resemblance to portraits of Maximinus
Thrax.36The fact that the pattern of the face is all linear and is spread out in the front plane
while the side plane is utterly neglected recalls the Agora priest No. 43, but the intensity of the
Agora head is lacking in the big, flabby face of the kosmetes; here the classicistic and Roman
elements neutralize one another, and the portrait as a whole becomes ineffectual. The careless
carving of the ears seems to be typical of the period. From now on in Athenian work the
tendency is to neglect the ears, representing them with the simplified outline that we see here
and with a minimum of interior modelling. The surface of the face is rasped as in G 20 and G 21.
The truculent kosmetes G 23, which Graindorplaces in the time of Philip (244-249), fits such
a date very well. The hair and beard represent a final simplification of the long-haired types we
have been studying. There is no drill-work and the chisel-strokes are coarse and heavy. The
scowling face with its narrow eyes and deep frown-wrinklesmakes an effective realistic portrait
in spite of the fact that this is not a careful piece of work. The pupils of the eyes already have
the crescent form that increases in popularity as the fourth century approaches.37 The face is
again rasped; we seem to be in a period in which smoothed faces are, for Athens, the exception
rather than the rule.
For the later part of this realistic period in third century portraitureL'Orangehas underlined
the essential features with admirableclarity: "Besonders die spatesten Portrats, diejenigen des
Decius, zeigen wie sich in den Einzelformen die lebendig-organische Spannung 16st, wiihrend
zugleich die ausdrucksgebendenKonturen gestrafft werden, s. z.B. die Augen, die ihre plastische
W8lbung fast verloren haben, wahrend die Konturen ihrer Raindereinen sehr akzentuierten
Schnitt erhalten, oder die Stirnfurchen, die trotz der kraftigen Betonung ihrer Konturen
skizzenhaft grob gezeichnet und nachlassig aus der Muskulatur herausgeholt sind."38 The
kosmetes G 1539 looks like an illustration of this sentence. The enormouseyes are astoundingly
flat, even more so when one sees the actual stone than they appear to be in photographs. The
short beard that grows down on the neck is in the fashion of the times, though the hair is in
tumbled curls, much longer than a Roman of the day would have worn it. The side view shows
the same features we have noticed in the preceding portraits, the carelessly carved clam-shell
35Cf. ibid., p. 10.
31 Cf. the bust in the
Capitoline Museum, Goldscheider,Roman Portraits, pl. 83; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 291 a.
37 Crescent pupils vary in shape from what is really a semicircle, as here, to a simple U-shaped line. Destined to become
the regular form in the fourth century, the crescent pupil appears only sporadically in the first half of the third along with
the plain circular pupils which represent the alternative simplification of the cardioid form. The two forms appear together
on the Attic Achilles Sarcophagus in the Capitoline Museum where the male portrait (L'Orange,Studien, fig. 12) has circular
pupils and the female head (Goldscheider, Roman Portraits, pl. 89) has the crescent type. The crescent appears in various
provincial portraits even in the second century: cf. the portrait of an elderly woman from Leptis Magna, R. Bartoccini, Le
Termedi Lepcis (Bergamo, 1929), p. 174, figs. 190-193, with Hadrianic coiffure (here the pupils are cut by means of a row of
small drill-holesforming a semicircle, a proceduresometimes employed in the fourth century also) and a second-century double
herm from Gaul (Arch. Anz., 1930, col. 237, figs. 21-22).
38 Studien, p. 4.
39Also published in L'Orange, Studien, cat. no. 6, fig. 18.
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITSOF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER 97
ears and the general neglect of the side plane of the face. A portrait from the Agora, No. 44, has
the same flat eyes with the sharp outline of the lids emphasized by undercutting. The hair is
short, indicated by little curved incisions into a roughenedsurface, the Athenian version of the
current Roman convention. The striking similarity of the Agora head, both in physiognomy
and in technique, to the ephebe portrait G 22 (P1.46, b) makes it clear that L'Orangeerred in
dating the latter to the time of Alexander Severus. The two portraits must have issued from the
same workshop at about the same time. The need for such a redating of the ephebe is shown
also by its relation to the kosmetes G 24, which looks like a somewhat later product of the same
shop. This and the Agora head of a negro, No. 45, have bulging eyes with heavy upper lids that
seem to overhang the face. A somewhat similar effect may be seen in the bronze statue in New
York (P1.46, c) called TrebonianusGallus(251-253),40as well as in a bronze head in Florence,41
perhaps a portrait of the same emperor.A number of Greek portraits of mid-century and after
show this formation of the eyes. The two replicas of a single portrait (probably an Athenian
priest) for which L'Orange has hazarded the identification Longinus seem to show that it
continued into the time of Gallienus (P1.46, d).42 We find it even in the portrait of a small boy
No. 46, from the Agora.

THE THIRD QUARTER OF THE THIRD CENTURY

The period of Gallienus has long served as a dumping-groundfor late Roman portraits that
could not easily be placed elsewhere. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, the
Gallienian"renaissance,"the deliberaterecultivation of classical Hellenic culture in the fields of
philosophy and letters, leads one to expect a similar reaction in the field of art, and the por-
traits of the Emperor himself seem to give evidence that one actually took place.43There has
been disagreement, however, as to the extent of the renaissance, and a drastic overestimation
of the revivifying effects of such a revolution of taste on the purely technical aspects of portrait-
making has caused some scholars to place in this period works made as much as a hundred
years earlier.44Second, and this adds to the confusion caused by the first, the hair and beard
style adopted by Gallienus differs only in length from certain earlier modes, e.g. that of
Maximinus Thrax,45and we have seen that the Greeks tended to let their hair and beards grow
longer than the fashion demanded. Thus we may occasionally find a seemingly Gallienian
coiffure on a non-Gallienian portrait. Third, once such heterogeneous works have been attri-
buted to the period, the situation tends to aggravate itself as more and more pieces are collected
around the original misattributions. We must be on guard, therefore, and must try, at least, to
40 Richter, Roman Portraits, no. 109.
41 Goldscheider,Roman Portraits, p1s. 98-99; Bovini, Mon. Ant., XXXIX, 1943, col. 195, figs. 9-10.
42
L'Orange, Studien, cat. nos. 11 and 12, figs. 25-27, 29.
43 See especially Alf1ldi, 25 Jahre R6misch-Germanische Kommission, pp. 33 ff.
44 The most notable example is the Antonine long-haired portrait in the Athens National Museumwhich has been variously
called "Rhoimetalkes," "Herodes Atticus," "Polemon" and "Christ"and which Alf6ldi, op. cit., p. 46, identifies as Gallienus
himself (ibid., pls. II 1, III 2, IV 1, V 1; Hekler, Bildniskunst, pl. 261). F. Poulsen, B.C.H., LII, 1928, pp. 245-255, dates
"around 270" a clearly Antonine philosopher portrait in Delphi to which he tentatively attaches the name "Plotinus"
because of the Platonic shape of the subject's beard. The much-discussed head from Miletopolis in Berlin (Bliimel, Rd-
mische Bildnisse, R 113, pl. 73; Alf6ldi, op. cit., pls. III 1, and V 2) is brought in both by Alfoldi and by Poulsen as a
companion for their would-be Gallienians, though its eastern style makes it difficult to compare with Athenian works.
L'Orange, Studien, p. 6, note 2, refutes Poulsen's theory of a revival of drill-technique in the time of Gallienus.
45 Maximinus Thrax is the first to permit the short beard to grow on the neck as well as on the face. When his beard style
is worn a little longer by a curly-beardedperson, the effect is like that of Gallienus'sbeard.
7
98 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD
find some logical relationship between the various Athenian works that seem to have been
made in the time of Gallienus and the decade immediately following.

THE KOSMETAIAND RELATED PORTRAITS

Of the thirty-three portraits of kosmetai which he published, Graindordated nine, G 25-33,,

after the middle of the third century. Of these, G 25, 26, 27 and 29 belong, as we have already
seen, to the first half of the century, while G 32 properly belongs, as Hekler has pointed out,46
to the early Antonine period. G 30 is a poor and hasty piece of work, but it would appear to be
most at home among works of the first three decades of the third century. That leaves three
pieces which may be later than 253: the classicized old man with the philosophical long beard,
G 28; the disdainful gentleman, G 31, whose pride cannot, in Graindor's opinion, be based
upon his intellectual attainments; and the "Constantinian"ephebe, G 33 (P1.46, a), with whom
we are already familiar.47
Among the Agora portraits, those which appear to fall within the third quarter of the century
are: Nos. 46, 48 and 49. Of these the head of a little boy, No. 46, with its overhangingeyes and
its expression of anxiety, shows the most direct relationship to the preceding portraits, those
that we dated around the time of Trebonianus Gallus. At the same time its features show a
strange resemblance to those of the priest portrait (P1.46, d), L'Orange's"Longinus,"48which
is perhaps of all Athenian portraits the one that shows most affinity to the portraits of Gallienus
himself. The priest has still the anxious eyes with heavy upper lids, the vertical wrinkles (like
reversed parentheses) between the eyebrows, and the heavily engraved forehead wrinkles that
we saw in the kosmetes G 24. The hair conforms exactly to the mode established by Gallienus
except that it does not extend so far down on the back of the neck; the disposition of the front
hair in flat locks above the forehead is genuinely Gallienian.While the portraits of the Emperor
himself have not so tense an expression, they often show the same basic pattern of forehead
lines (especially the reversed parentheses between the eyebrows). It is to the later types of the
portraits of Gallienus49that this portrait shows most affinity, and so we must assume that the
continuous tradition represented here by the series G 22 (and Agora 44), G 24 and the priest
portraits lasted almost until the arrival of the Heruli. In this series the tense worriedexpression
that is characteristic of Roman works around 250 survives, and there is little of the stiffening,
flattening and smoothing that appear in the late portraits of Gallienushimself.
The kosmetes with the long beard, G 28, combines hair and beard which seem copied from
some classical Greek philosopherportrait with a mustache in the style of the time of Gallienus.
In the very dry, detailed carving of the hair the drill has no part. The eyes with their heavy
upper lids and their pupils rendered by a single round hole recall other Athenian works of the
mid third century and after.50.
The disdainful kosmetes G 31 was dated by Graindorin the time of Carinus,but it shows a
certain relation to Athenian works of around 250 that argues against too late a date. The lumpy
shape of the skull recalls the ephebe G 22 and his relative from the Agora, No. 44. The rasped
4*Jahreshefte,XXI-XXII, 1922-24, p. 196, fig. 66.
47See above, p. 90.
48 See above, note 42.
49See L'Orange, Studien, pp. 5 ff., figs. 8-11.
50For round pupils cf. Nos. 44 and 51, the kosmetes G 15 and the ephebe G 33 (P1. 46, a). For projecting upper lids
No. 46 and G 33. cf.
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITS OF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER 99
surface and the wide open spaces around the eyes are further points of similarity. The beard
covers the chin as it does in the kosmetes G 24, but it is a little longer. The rendering of the
hair shows a more radical departure; it is carved in long parallel gouged strokes that are ex-
tremely shallow and give the effect of rather long thin locks brushed forwardfrom the crown of
the head. This longer hair must place the kosmetes in the time of Gallienus. The hair style
alone would fit equally well a date just after Gallienus, did not the face and beard so strongly
resemble earlierwork.
In the ephebe G 33 (P1.46, a) as in the kosmetes G 31 the shallow carving of the hair gives the
impression of lank strands brushed uniformly forward, but the drily meticulous attention to
detail shown in the ephebe portrait is in sharp contrast to the shadowy suggestion of hair in the
portrait of the kosmetes. It is the arrangement of the hair, all brushed forward and with the
ends forming a regular arch over the forehead, that has suggested to scholars a date in the
fourth century, and the careful symmetry of the features and the simplification of the planes
of the face have been adduced in confirmation. The date of the coiffure with long thin strands
brushedforwardto frame the face interests us not only for its occurrencein the present portrait,
but because it appears as well in the puzzling group of late Athenian portraits in which Roden-
waldt saw representationsof Neo-Platonist philosophers.51The thin strands occur in the man's
portrait on the famous Annona sarcophagusin the Terme, dated by the woman's coiffureto the
270's.52 Here, however, the side front hair is still brushed back toward the ears. The closest
approximation to the mode worn in our Athenian portraits is to be found in the portraits of the
brothers on a sarcophagusin Naples, dated by Rodenwaldt just after the time of Gallienus.53
The coins of the post-Gallienian emperors show the progressive tendency toward brushing
forward all the hair that frames the face, though the military cut worn by the emperors is
usually shorter than the hair of our portraits. Coins of Claudius Gothicus (268-270) show
examples both of forward-sweptand back-swept hair at the sides of the face, but the forward-
swept predominates. The hairline forms reentrant angles at the sides of the forehead.54In the
coins of Aurelian (270-275) the forward-swept hair again predominates and the angles are
blunted so that the outline of the hair becomes more nearly oval.55Probus (276-282) returns to
the angular outline but continues to brush the side hair forwardin most examples.56
The portrait of the ephebe with its oval hairline shows most resemblance to the coins of
Aurelian and on this basis might be given a date ca. 270-275, contemporary with the latest
preserved ephebe list and only a few years before the portraits of the kosmetai were finally
sacrificed to the building of the wall and vanished from sight. An oval hairline is frequent,
however, on portraits of youths and boys even when a differenttype prevails elsewhere: e.g. the
head of a boy in the Athens National Museum(no. 511), probably to be dated ca. 235-240, and
the little boy from the Agora, No. 46, which we have placed in the time of Gallienus.Hence any
date between the first appearance of the forward-swept coiffurewith the long strands and the
building of the wall would seem possible for the ephebe. Whether or not this coiffure had
already appearedin the reign of Gallienuswe cannot be sure. Certainlyit was in evidence by the

51 See below, pp. 100-105.

56 Rodenwaldt, Jahrb., LI, 1936, p. 109, fig. 12.
53Rodenwaldt, ZeitschriftfiurbildendeKunst, n.f. XXXIII, 1922, pp. 119-123; Bovini, Mon. Ant., XXXIX, 1943, pl. 7.
54Delbriick, Die Milnzbildnissevon Maximinus bis Carinus (Herrscherbild,111,2, Berlin, 1940), pl. 22, Beil. 5, 18.
65 bid., pls. 23, 24.

5" Ibid., pls. 26-28.

8
100 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD
time of Claudius Gothicus,57and it becomes in a sense the ancestor of all subsequent late Roman
male coiffures.
So far as the modelling of the face is concerned, a comparison with works of the time of
Constantine does not support a fourth century date for the ephebe. In the sculptured portraits
of Constantine and his contemporariesthe surfaces are harder and flatter than they are here,
and abrupt intersections of planes are not avoided. The offsets are sharper and the features are
given a heavier emphasis.5s In the ephebe portrait all the surfaces are rounded and all the
edges blunted. Details such as the eyes and eyebrows are renderedprecisely but unemphatically.
In the fourth century portrait the parts of the face are more important than the whole: eyes,
eyebrows, mouth and chin form an independent architectural framework on which the whole
structure of the head is based. In the ephebe portrait, on the other hand, the features scarcely
interrupt the egg-like continuity of the whole. The symmetry and simplification of planes
observablehere may be due in part to a classicismthat, like the oval hairline, seems particularly
common in portrayals of the very young. Again one may compare the head in the National
Museum,no. 511, and our little boy, No. 46. In the latter, though it seems to be a product of the
school that producedthe tense, rather realistic portraits of older men, the planes are very much
simplified. The eyebrows are sharp arrises and the upper part of the nose is a flat continuation
of the forehead plane. The plane of the forehead also curves around without interruption to
join that of the cheek.
On the other hand, the dry, finished style of the ephebe head, in which all the details of the
hair are meticulously renderedwith the chisel, links it with that of the long-beardedkosmetes,
G 28. The rendition of the pupil of the eye by a simple deep cup is a further point of similarity.
The distinction between the tense style and the dry style in Athenian portraiture cannot be
wholly chronological,for the tense style is carried on not only in the Gallienianpriest portraits
(P1.46, d) and No. 49,59but also in portraits of the last quarter of the century such as our No. 50
and a related head in the Athens National Museum(P1.47, e).60 The dry style may have begun in
the time of Gallienus, the period to which we have tentatively assigned the long-bearded
kosmetes. Its peak, represented by the ephebe head and the better examples of the "philo-
sopher" portraits of the second group discussed below, seems to have been reached just after
Gallienus, and the Agora provides a decadent example, No. 52, from near the end of the
century. The head of a youth, No. 51, belongs essentially to the dry style, but its exact date
remains a matter of conjecture. The origin of the style may lie in the much-discussed Gallienian
classicism, of which we find otherwise very little evidence in Athenian portraits. The dichotomy
here introducedis continued at the end of the century by L'Orange's"Eastern" and "Western"
styles, of which the Eastern favors symmetry and simplification, the Western a more irregular
form of expression.61
THE "PHILOSOPHERS"

In No. 49, the burnt and sadly weathered portrait of an aged man crowned with strophion
and wreath, the Agora excavations have added a new member to a group of portraits that has
contributed perhaps even more than the ephebe from the "ValerianWall" to the legend of the
67 See above, note 54.
68Cf. L'Orange, Studien, figs. 146-150, 157, 158, 163-166; Delbriick, SpdtantikeKaiserportrdts,pls. 27-39; Richter, Roman
Portraits, no. 110.
69 See below, p. 101.
CoL'Orange, Studien, cat. no. 56. See above, No. 50, note 1.
el Studien, pp. 16 ff.
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITS OF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER 101

superior plasticity of late Roman portraiture in Greece. Rodenwaldt, who was the first to call
attention to this group as such, listed seven pieces.62Later discoverieshave brought the number
up to ten.
I. P1.47, c. In Athens, Nat. Mus. no. 582. From the Asklepieionat Epidauros.Rodenwaldt,
76 Wp., pls. 1-2; L'Orange,Studien, cat. no. 65, fig. 114.
II. In Athens, Nat. Mus. no. 581. From the Serpentje Wall on the south slope of the
Acropolis. Rodenwaldt, 76 Wp., pl. 3; L'Orange,Studien, cat. no. 64.
III. P1. 47, a. In Athens, Nat. Mus. no. 580. Provenience not recorded. Pentelic marble.
Rodenwaldt, 76 Wp., pl. 4; L'Orange,Studien, cat. no. 62.
IV. In Athens, Nat. Mus. no. 3411. Proveniencenot recorded.Pentelic marble. Rodenwaldt,
76 Wp., fig. 1; L'Orange,Studien, cat. no. 63.
V. In Delphi Museum,no. 4040. Found in Delphi south of the temple. Rodenwaldt, 76 Wp.,
no. V; L'Orange,Studien, cat. no. 60, figs. 111 and 113.
VI. In Athens, Nat. Mus. no. 360. From Delphi. Rodenwaldt, 76 Wp., pl. 5; L'Orange,
Studien, cat. no. 59, figs. 110 and 112.
VII. Pl. 46, e. In Eleusis Museum.From the sanctuary. Rodenwaldt, 76 Wp., fig. 2; L'Orange,
Studien, cat. no. 58, figs. 108 and 109; Hekler, Die Antike, XVI, 1940, pp. 135ff., fig. 23.
VIII. In Rome, the Vatican Magazines.Kaschnitz-Weinberg,no. 679. Provenience unknown.
Described by Kaschnitz-Weinberg as being of medium-grained white marble and
undoubtedly the product of an Attic workshop. L'Orange,Studien, cat. no. 61, fig. 115.
IX. P1. 31. In Athens, Agora excavations Inv. S 659, above, No. 49. From a mixed deposit
containing sherds of the Turkishperiod.
X. P1.47, b. In Corinth. Inv. 2415. Exact provenience unknown. Brought in from outside
the excavations in 1938.63
The persons represented are elderly men with lank hair falling over their foreheads and with
beards of medium length. The group seems to divide into two basic types, of which the first
shows a close stylistic relation to the "Longinus" portrait (P1.46, d), i.e. to the late Gallienian
"tense style," while the other is closer to the ephebe portrait, G 33 (Pl. 46, a), representingthe
post-Gallienian (?) floruit of the "dry style." There can be no doubt that the Agora and
Eleusis heads (Nos. IX and VII) represent a single person and that this is not the same person
as the one represented in the Epidauros portrait. The type is characterized by the marked
asymmetry of the features and by the tense, worried expression of the face. L'Orange has
pointed out the resemblance of the Eleusis head to Late Gallienian works, especially to the
"Longinus." Regarding the somewhat longer beard and the locks brushed forward onto the
forehead as slightly later features, he dates the piece in the seventies."4The burned condition
of the Agora head suggests (though certainty is impossible, in view of the late mixed context in
which the head was found) that this particular piece was made before 267 and sufferedin the
barbarian invasion of that year. In any case, the arrangement of the side front hair in back-
62 76 Wp., pp. 3-7. Rodenwaldt dated the portraits to the second half of the fourth century. L'Orange (Studien, pp. 40f.
and discussions of individual pieces under cat. nos. 58-65) recognizes that this date is too late. He regards the group rather as
a developmental series that continues the tradition of the third century down into the fourth. The dating proposed below is
somewhat earlier still.
63
I am grateful to Edward Capps, Jr. for permission to use photographs of this portrait which will be published by him in
his forthcoming volume on the sculpture from the Corinth excavations of the American School of Classical Studies (Corinth,
IX, ii, no. 95).
64Studien, p. 41.
8*
102 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

swept waves behind the temples is definitely Gallienianin contrast to the forward-sweptstyle
that predominatesin the seventies.65
Of the remaining eight pieces, five: Nos. I, III, IV, VIII and X seem clearly to represent a
single person by means of a single type, which we call, for the sake of convenience, the Epidauros
type. Such differencesas exist between these five are differencesof technique only. This portrait
is characterized by symmetrical and ornamental treatment of the features, the hair and the
beard. The eyebrows form prominent ridges, smoothly arched, and the wrinkles across the fore-
head are parallel grooves following the curve of the eyebrows. The hair is brushed forward
above the ears. In the back it lies in long, curving strands against the nape of the neck. The
beard, a little longer than that of the Eleusis type, is brushed forwardand down in great sweep-
ing curves over the cheeks, and the ends fan out into a decorative row of curls along the jawline
and under the chin. The ends of the mustache curve in below the mouth, and the beard on the
chin is all brushed toward the center.
The two fragmentaryheads in Athens, Nos. III (P1.47, a) and IV, are certainly products of a
single workshop, as is shown by the identical treatment of the hair, in small, overlapping locks
that give the appearance of pointed scales. The Vatican head, No. VIII, is close to the one in
Corinth. Both show a shallow, sketchy treatment of the hair, and the modelling of the faces is
similar. In both the center of the forehead rises in a sort of boss. In the Epidauros head, the
execution is altogether different.Harsh engraved lines have replaced the more plastic modelling
of the features and the sketchy treatment of the hair in the other examples. Iconographically,
however, the portrait does not deviate from the basic type in any important respect. The
arrangementof the locks over the forehead, including the fork above the right eye, the symme-
trical wrinkles of the brow, the projecting arched eyebrows, the forward sweep of the beard on
the sides, the symmetrical enframement of the mouth, and the ornamental rows of curls in
which the beard terminates are all in perfect conformity with the type. The head must have
been copied from one of the others, but by a differenthand and at a different time.
For the more plastic, and so presumably earlier, representatives of the Epidauros type our
closest Athenian parallel is the ephebe from the "Valerian Wall," G 33. We may compare,
despite the difference in the ages of the subjects, the decorative symmetry of the face as a
whole, the forward sweep of the hair over the ears and the slight parting of the foreheadhair
above the right eye. The precise, dry carving of the strands of the beard in No. III (P1. 47, a) is
comparable to that of the hair on the ephebe, though the hair of No. III is more sketchily
rendered. The combination of straight, forward-brushedhair with a curly beard is to be found
on the post-Gallienian sarcophagusin Naples mentioned above.66
In the head from Epidauros (P1.47,c) everything has become linear. Coarse engraved lines
are used not only for the strands of the beard but also for the locks of hair and even for the out-
lining and inner drawing of the eyes. One is reminded of the technique used in late Roman
plastic vases (P1.47, d)67where the technique of drawing the details by means of gouged lines is
a natural one. Since similar effects, especially in the outlining of the eyes, are to be found in
works of the last quarter of the century,68 it seems likely that the Epidauros head is a some-
what later replica of the type than the heads from Athens and Corinth.
60 See above, p. 99.
'1 See above, note 53.
67 See above, No. 51, note 4.
8 Cf. L'Orange, Studien, figs. 98-103. A very poorly preserved head of a small boy from the Agora, Inv. S 450, shows
similar outlining of the eyeball.
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITS OF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER 103
The portrait from the Serpentje Wall in Athens, No. II, is not an exact replica of the Epi-
dauros type, but may well be a simplified version of it. The lines in the forehead, the swing of
the eyebrows, the curved nose with its drooping tip, the sunken cheeks and the mouth are
essentially the same as in the other heads. So are the curve of the beard on the sides and the
curls along the jawline. It is in the hair that the most drastic simplificationshave taken place:
the front fringe is pulled together to a single point in the center of the forehead, and on the
sides a single series of parallellines runs from front to back, curving over the tops of the ears and
all the way down to the nape of the neck, as though the hair were a hank of yarn draped over
the head.
The two heads from Delphi, Nos. V and VI, seem to be related to the other two types already
described without being exact replicas. Vertical worry-wrinklesbetween the eyebrows, brows
that do not arch but sag, unsymmetrically placed eyes, and a beard without formal pattern link
No. VI with the Eleusis and Agora heads. The most marked deviation is in the front hair, which
instead of being brushed back toward the ears on either side comes forward above them as in
the Epidauros type. The locks over the forehead also fail to conform to the pattern of the type.
The hair on the nape of the neck is thin and straight as in the Eleusis head, but there is no
wreath. If the Delphi head is a wreathless version of a wreathed type, the lack of connection
between the front and back hair is thus accounted for.
The other head from Delphi, No. V, might be a watered-downversion of the Epidauros type.
The slight cock of the head to the right, the high trapezoidalforehead,the high-archedeyebrows,
the sentimental expression (here rendered slightly ridiculous by the inept carving of the eyes),
the symmetrical sweep of the mustache and beard around the mouth and the ornamental curls
in which the beard terminates all belong to the type. Deviations are the absence of the wave in
the hair on the back of the neck and of the forward-sweepingcurve of the beard over the cheeks.
Both these heads have a lifeless, crude workmanshipthat sets them apart from other members
of the group. They would seem to be late versions made after the decline in technique that
followed the economic decline of late third century Athens became strongly felt, or else pro-
vincial versions made by inferior local sculptors. In any case, they must be later than the
Athenian originals of these types, for the changes in the arrangement of the hair are such as
would accord with later fashions.69
Various attempts have been made to identify these portraits. The bearded type, the age of
the men and their concentrated expressions led Rodenwaldt to the conclusion that these were
philosophers,and the fact that several of them were found in sanctuaries suggested to him that
they were Neo-Platonists, philosophers who made themselves champions of the old pagan
sanctuaries in their final struggle against Christianity. L'Orangefavors the identification of the
men as Neo-Platonists, though his raising of Rodenwaldt's chronology70presents a different set
of possible subjects. For the Epidauros type he suggests Iamblichos, "the central figure of the
Hellenistic philosophy of the fourth century.""' More recently Hekler has suggested that the
Eleusis head representsNikagoras, a sophist of the third century, a descendant of Plutarch and
a sacred herald of the Eleusinian Mysteries.72This identification cannot be proved, though it

69 I.e., the elimination of the Gallienian back-swept waves in front of the ears that characterizes the Eleusis type and of the
forward sweep of the beard in the Epidauros type. In general, portraits of the late third century show the hair all brushed
forward and the beard all brushed back (if it is long enough to show direction).
70See above, note 62.
71Studien, p. 43.
72 Die Antike, XVI, 1940, pp. 135f.
104 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD
was suggested by the actual existence of the base of a statue of Nikagoras in the sanctuary at
Eleusis where the head was found.3" Whether or not it is right, however, it is the right sort of
identification. The priestly insignia of the Agora replica make it likely that the subject of this
portrait was a member of one of the Athenian noble families who held priesthoods at Athens as
well as at Eleusis. Nikagoras must, however, have lived to a very ripe old age if it is he who is
represented,for those who have worked out the genealogy of his family suggest a birth-date for
him ca. 175-180.14
Our dating of the Epidauros type in the immediately post-Gallienian period precludes the
identification with Iamblichos proposed by L'Orange. The number of replicas (five certain plus
one probable and one possible) seems at first glance an astonishing number for a portrait of
someone who was certainly not an emperoror a member of the imperial family. Yet a glance at
the inscriptions of the surviving Greek statue-bases of Roman times serves to show that it was
by no means unusual for a prominent citizen to have more than one portrait (whether statue or
herm) erected to him, even though his renown may never have spread much beyond his own
city.75Various important offices and priesthoods held and various benefactions performed for
the city at different times might serve as the occasions for erecting new statues, sometimes at
the expense of the state and sometimes with the permission of the state but at the expense of
some member of the subject's family. There is no reason to think that a new type would be
created on each of these occasions. The activities of Herodes Atticus76are sufficient proof that
those who filled the Greek towns and countryside with statues and herms in the Roman period
took no pains to spare the passerby the boredom of encountering the same face over and over
again. A good type, once established, would doubtless be repeated with only those variations
required by the occasion: the addition or subtraction of wreaths or the adjustments requiredto
make a statue-portrait into a herm-portrait.
In view of the rapid decline of sculpture in the last third of the third century, the striking
differencein technique between the plastic and linear versions of the portrait need not represent
a very great lapse of time. It is perhaps not due entirely to chance that the face of No. II, the
head from the Serpentje Wall, looks somewhat older than those of the others. The sculptor may
have been able, without altering the basic type, to suggest the advancing age of his subject.
There is no real evidence for the identification of this most-copied of late Athenian portraits.
If the two Delphi portraits are actually versions of our Eleusis and Epidauros types, the
coincidence of their occurring together at Delphi may argue some connection between them,
but as to what this might be we have as yet no clue. In the absence of other indications for the
Epidauros type, one is tempted to wonderwhether it may not preservefor us the features of the
historian Dexippos.77A wealthy and influential Athenian citizen and a member of the priestly
clan of the Kerykes, he combined civil and military leadership with his literary profession. He
claims credit for the expulsion of the barbariansfrom Greece, and the inscription on the base
73 .G., I, 3814.
74 0. Schissel, "Die Familie des Minukianos," Klio, XXI, 1927, p. 367. This means that he must have lived a very long
time in any case if it is true, as Hekler suggests, op. cit., p. 136, that he survived by about two decades his friend Philostratos
(who died between 244 and 249).
75 There are, for example, three inscriptions surviving from portraits of the historian Dexippos (I.G.,
I2, 3669-3671) and
three of his father (I.G., I, 3666-3668). The appearance of a copy of our portrait at Epidauros may indicate that the subject
held a priesthood there, as prominent Athenians sometimes did: cf. Q. Alleius Epiktetos, an archon of Athens in the second
century, Oliver, Hesperia, XI, 1942, p. 86, note 32 (where the reading of I.G., IV2, 691 is corrected and Alleius is shown to
have been an Athenian, not an Epidaurian). In the fourth century Ploutarchos who was &pX at Athens and lEpcxa-r6oS
at Epidauros dedicated two statuettes of Asklepios in the sanctuary (I.G., IV2, 436, 437). ep•;s
76 See
above, under No. 26.
7 For the career of
Dexippos see Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E., s.v.
 ATHENIAN PORTRAITSOF THE THIRD CENTURY AND AFTER 105
of a statue erected to him about 27078 calls him "famed throughout Hellas" for his historical
writings. Such an identification has, however, even less real evidence in its favor than has that
of the Eleusis type as Nikagoras, for none of the replicas can be shown to have the same pro-
venience as any of the inscriptions of Dexippos.

THELASTQUARTER
OFTHETHIRDCENTURY
It is not surprisingthat the last quarter of the third century is poorly representedamong the
Agora portraits, for the Agora itself lay in ruins at this time and no portraits were set up there.
No. 50, with which we have compared a head in the Athens National Museum (P1l.47, e) dated
by L'Orangeto the early Tetrarchicperiod,79representsthe continuation of what we called the
"tense style" in works of the preceding quarter-century.These portraits are the final offshoots
of the school from which the priest portraits (P1. 46, d) and our No. 49 originated in the late
Gallienianperiod. Their late date is apparent in the hair style and in the crudertechnique and
harsh use of incised lines.
The head of a middle-aged man with stubble beard, No. 52, is certainly later, very near the
end of the century if not after, but it differsfrom No. 50 also in the fact that it seems to stem
from the "dry style" of the seventies. In keeping with the fashion of the times it shows a
stippled beardrenderedwith direction-lessstrokes and a sharp off-setting of the hair mass from
the neck in back. The technical inferiority of the piece shows up particularlyin the carving of
the eyebrows and nose, which may be compared with that in the poorer of the two "philo-
sopher" portraits from Delphi, above, p. 101 No. V.
The youth with the stippled beard, No. 51, shows considerably greater proficiency in the
modelling of the face, which, except for the simplified treatment of the forehead, bears a
certain resemblanceto that of the ephebe G 33.80 The manner of stippling the beard, however,
and the sharp line that divides the hair from the face, seem to place the work at the end of the
century. If H. A. Thompson is right in considering this head a pre-Herulian work,s81these
features must be regardedas less reliable evidence for dating than has been hitherto supposed.

THE FOURTH CENTIURY

The three ill-preserved pieces which can be attributed to the fourth century, Nos. 53-55,
form a pathetic epilogue to the story of late Athenian portraitureas read in the finds from the
Agora excavations. In their present condition these pieces tell us little about the quality of
Athenian work during this period except that the carving is very flat and the forms are rigidly
stylized. The male head, No. 53, with its flat brow and blank eyes appears to reflect Constan-
tinian classicism in a particularly cold and empty form. The female head No. 55 with the
slender oval face seems almost archaic in the simplicity of its planes. Here we are left with a

78l.G., II2, 3669.

7 See above, No. 50, note 1.
80See above, p. 66.
sl See above, loc. cit.
106 OBSERVATIONSON ATHENIAN PORTRAIT STYLE IN THE ROMAN PERIOD
half-formed vision of something that might have been quite attractive if only a little more of it
had been spared for our enjoyment.

THE FIFTH CENTURY

In fifth century Athens, a university town whose students and visitors continued to bring her
a measure of prosperity and of contact with the outside world, portraits were still being made.
A few of these survive, but no portrait head of this century has as yet come to light in the area
of the Agora. The headless statue of a magistrate, No. 64 above, is our only representative of
the period. Its shallow carving and block-like form, preserving the shape of the stone from
which it was carved, suggest that it belongs late in the century when even this last brief flower-
ing of Athenian prosperity had begun to wither away.
CONCORDANCE OF CATALOGUE AND INVENTORY NUMBERS

Inv. No. Cat.No. Inv. No. Cat. No.

S 166 56 805 13
220 12 837 23
224 26 841 6
248 54 849 60
258 32 850 58
270 1 880 21
333 3 931 55
335 28 936 57
336 33 938 30
347 17 950 48
356 7 954 38
359 16 998 5
362 36 1091 24
387 39 1134 40
403 42 1135 47
435 45 1182 18
479 27 1237 35
517 37 1245 31
525 10 1256 50
526 29 1268 20
564 43 1287 8
580 44 1299 19
584 22 1307 41
586 25 1312 46
608 2 1319 14
657 64 1345 63
659 49 1346 59
680 15 1347 61
707 9 1354 62
739 4 1406 5i
775 53 1604 52
801 34 1631 11
 INDEX OF MUSEUMS
Amsterdam
AllardPiersonMuseum:
head of a man, 3rd quarterof 3rd century: 63
Athens
Acropolis:
Hadrian,fragmentof cuirass-statue:732
AcropolisMuseum:
Hadrian,fragmentof cuirass-statue:732
AgoraExcavations:*
Child, fragment of head, S 450: 10268
Two seated statues from the Odeion, S 930 and
S 936: 720, 351, 74
Base of a bronzestatue of Hadrian,I 4188: 7414
Ephebiclist, I 231: 91
Inscribedherm of Anakreon(headless),I 2061: 720
Late Romanhead-vases;P 570, 5514, 6206, 10004,
10240, 10762, 11939, T 1048: 674, P1. 47, d
(P 10004)
Kerameikos:
grave-stele, 2nd half of 3rd century, P 190: 9215
man with wreath, head fragment, 3rd century,
P 2: 54
NationalMuseum:
AntoninusPius, head, 3563: 13
Augustus,head, from the Roman Agora, 3758: 86
Faustinathe Younger,threeheads,359, 1687,3712,
and bust: 47
GaiusCaesar,head, 3606: 21, 87
Hadrian, bust from the Olympieion,249: P1. 45,
39, 881
Hadrian,fragmentsof cuirass-statue:732
Hadrian,head with coronacivica,3729: 73
Lucius Verus, head from Theater of Dionysos,
350: 40
LuciusVerus (2), head, 1961: 535
Sabina,head, 449: 379
bust of a man, 5th century, 423: 80
grave-stele,2nd half of 3rd century,1207: 9215
heads: man, bronze,from Delos, 2nd centuryB.C.,
14612:122
man, 1st centuryB.C., 320: 123, 8619
man, 1st centuryB.C., 321: P1.43, b, 11 and 123
man, 1st centuryB.C.,331: 14, 306
man and wife from Smyrna, 1st century B.C.,
362-8: 201
* This includes only pieces mentioned but not
catalogued in the present work. They are listed in chronological order.
man, Antonine("Christ"),419: 881, 9744
man with strophion and wreath, Antonine,
356: 41
boy, 2nd quarter of 3rd century, 511: 9532, 99,
100
man with strophion and wreath, two replicas,
3rd quarterof 3rd century, 349 and 438: Pl.
46, d, 616, 61, 64, 97, 98, 100
man, 2nd half of 3rd century, 580: P1. 47, a,
101, 102
man, 2nd half of 3rd century, 3411: 101, 102
man, from Delphi, 2nd half of 3rd century, 360:
101, 103
man, from Epidauros,2nd half of 3rd century,
582: Pl. 47, c, 68, 101, 102
man, from Serpentje Wall, 2nd half of 3rd
century, 581: 101, 103, 104
man, last quarterof 3rd century, 573: P1. 47, e,
651, 68, 100, 105
men, two heads, Tetrarchicperiod,536 and 658:
66
herms of kosmetai:
Heliodoros, ca. A.D. 100-110/1, G(raindor)2,
384: 30, 31
unknown,time of Trajan, G 3, 410: 374
Onasos,ca. A.D. 129-138, G 7, 387: 34, 36
Sosistratos,A.D. 141/2, G 9, 385: 36
Cl.Chrysippos,A.D. 142/3, G 10, 386: 36
unknown,Antonineperiod, G 32, 405: 98
unknown,time of SeptimiusSeverus, G 12, 407:
504, 53
unknown,1st quarterof 3rd century, G 13, 502
unknown,1st quarterof 3rd century, G 14, 408:
502, 53, 93-94
unknown,1st quarterof 3rd century, G 26, 415:
94
unknown,1st quarterof 3rd century, G 16, 411:
94
unknown,1st half of 3rd century, G 30, 397: 98
unknown,1st half of 3rd century, G 27, 393: 51,
885, 94
unknown,1st half of 3rd century, G 17, 414: 94
unknown,1st half of 3rd century, G 18, 412: 94
unknown,1st half of 3rd century, G 29, 403: 94
unknown, period of Alexander Severus, G 25,
398: 55-56, 95
 INDEX OF MUSEUMS
unknown,2nd quarterof 3rd century, G 19, 395:
575, 96
unknown,A.D. 238/9, G 20, 388: 61, 62, 899,93,
94, 96
unknown,approximatelysamedate as preceding,
G 21, 390: 61, 62, 899, 93, 96
unknown, 2nd quarter of 3rd century, G 23,
402: 96
unknown, 2nd quarter of 3rd century, G 15,
409: 96
ephebe, unknown, 2nd quarter of 3rd century,
G 22, 391: P1. 46,b, 51, 58, 591, 60, 94, 97
unknown,middleof 3rd century, G 24, 406: 599, Museum:
60, 97, 98
unknown, middle of 3rd century, G 28, 396:
98, 100
unknown,3rd quarterof 3rd century, G 31, 400:
98-99
ephebe,unknown,2nd half of 3rd century, G 33,
399: P1.46, a, 66, 90-91, 99-100, 101, 102
sarcophagusportraitof a man, 2nd quarterof 3rd
century, 1497: 58
statue of a man fromDelos, 1st centuryB.C., 1828:
16, 201
statue of a youth from Eretria, 244: 766
Berlin
KaiserFriedrichMuseum:
head of an emperor,Constantinian,6730: 692
StaatlicheMuseen:
Attalos I, head from Pergamon,P 130: 122
Caracalla,bust, R 96: 503,88
Gallienus,head, R 114: 95
Polydeukion (favorite of Herodes Atticus), bust,
R 72: Pl. 44, c, 38
bust of a woman, Trajanic,R 37: 322
headof a woman,AntoniaMinor(?), R 23: P1.44,a,
24, 261
head of a man, Hadrianic,R 68: 34
head of negro, early Antonine,R 73: 7
head of a man, from Miletopolis,1st half of 3rd
century, R 113: 9744
Cairo
Dealer (ace. Graindor, Bustes et statues-portraits):
Septimius Severus, head: 403
Museum:
Alexander Severus, head, 27480: 564, 9529
Chiusi
MuseoCivico:
four male portrait statues: 767
Como
Museo Giovio:
head of a lady of the house of Constantine:70
109
Copenhagen
Ny CarlsbergGlyptotek:
Attalos III (?), head, 455: 141
Livia (?), head, 614: 23, 25
bust of a woman, Julio-Claudian,607: 223
head of a shavenpriest, 1st centuryB.C., 458a: 14
head of an elderlywoman, Julio-Claudian,574: 17
head of an elderlyman, Hadrianic,463a: 36-37
head of a woman,Antonine,710: 48
head of an ephebe,3rd century,469 b: 61
Corinth
Augustus, statue from Julian Basilica, 1116: P1.
43, f, 19, 86-87
Caracalla,head, 1470: 503,93
GaiusCaesar,statue, 1065: 87
Hadrian, fragmentsfrom cuirass-statue,1456: 73
headof a manwith wreath,1st centuryB.C., 1445a:
P1. 43, c, 13, 85
head of a man, 2nd half of 3rd century, 2415:
P1. 47, b, 68, 101, 102
Cos
Antiquarium:
Augustus,head: 86
Delos
Museum:
Augustus,colossalhead: 86
head of a man fromthe cisternof the House of the
Diadoumenos,1st century B.C.: 2013
head of a man from the Theater Quarter, 1st
century B.C.: 13, 8619
Delphi
Museum:
head of a man, 2nd half of 3rd century: 101, 103,
104
hermof a philosopher,Antonine:885,9744
Eleusis
Museum:
head of a man with strophion,second half of 3rd
century: P1. 46,e, 616, 63-64, 101
two heads of little boys, 3rd century: 54-55
Florence
Museo Archeologico:
Trebonianus Gallus (?), bronze head: 97
Gortyn
Hadrian, cuirass-statue: 732
Herakleion
Museum:
head of a woman, from Gortyn, Julio-Claudian: 223
110 INDEX OF MUSEUMS
HoughtonHall
Julia Domna, head: 461
Ince BlundellHall
SeptimiusSeverus,head: 402
tomb relief of the time of Tiberius:251
Istanbul
Museum:
Augustus,head, from Pergamon:86-87
Hadrian, cuirass-statuefrom Hierapytna: 72, 732
Louvre:
portrait statues of women from Magnesiaon the
Maeander:44
Kisamos
Hadrian,cuirass-statue:72 and 732
LansdowneHouse
Bust of a woman, Trajanic:322
London
British Museum:
Hadrian,cuirass-statuefrom Cyrene,1466: 732
bust of a little boy with "Horuslock", 1935: 558
head of a man from Cyprus, 1st century B.C.,
1879: 15
Malta
Museodel Rabato:
Antonia Minor(?), fragmentof a statue: 24
Naples
MuseoNazionale:
Aeschines,statue, 6018: 766,78
Hadrian,cuirass-bust, 6075: 375
Herodotos,single herm, 6146: 102
Herodotosand Thucydides,doubleherm,6239: 102
M. Nonius Balbus, statue, 6167: 769
NorbanusSorex,bronzehead, 4991: 13, 15 and 161
Viciria,statue, 6168: 17
bust of an elderlyman, Trajanic,6182: 31
sarcophagus,3rd quarterof 3rd century: 99, 102
New York
MetropolitanMuseumof Art:
Augustus (2), bust: P1. 43,d, 18
Flaccilla (?), head: P1. 48,a, 70, 71
Herodotos, herm: P1. 43,a, 102
Trebonianus Gallus, bronze statue: P1. 46,c, 97
bust of a man, bronze, 1st century B.C.: 15-16
Nikosia
Museum:
SeptimiusSeverus,bronzestatue: 402
Olympia
Museum:
Faustina the Younger, statue: P1. 44,b, 44-45
Hadrian,cuirass-statue:72 and 732
Regilla,wifeof HerodesAtticus,statue: P1.48,b, 78
head of a man, end of 3rd century: 66
statues of womenby Eros and Eleusinios:78
statue of an empress,Poppaea Sabina (2): 781
Ostia
Museum:
Trajan,colossalhead: 31
Paris
AlexanderSeverus,colossalhead: 9530
AntiochosIII (?), head: 20
Antonia Minor,statue: 24
Hadrian,bust from Herakleion:375
HerodesAtticus, bust from Marathon:408,886
MarcusAurelius,bust from Marathon:408
Melitine,bust from the Piraeus:47
Piraeus
Museum:
Trajan,colossalhead: 28
Pompeii
Museum:
Livia, statue from the Villa of the Mysteries:23
Rome
Museo Capitolino:
Decius, bust, Stanza degli Imperatori,70: 574
Domitia, bust, Stanza degli Imperatori,25: 27
Elagabalus,head, Sala delle Colombe,55: 51
Maximinus Thrax, Stanza degli Imperatori, 62:
572, 9636
Probus,head, Salone, 66: 68
Theonof Smyrna,bust, Stanzadei Filosofi,25: 887
sarcophagus, Achilles, Stanze terrene a dritta,
III, 1: 60, 9637
statue of MarsUltor, Atrio, 40: 749
Palazzo dei Conservatori:
bust of a little boy, 3rd century,Mon.are., 32: 553
two statues of magistrates,Late Roman, Galleria
66 and 67: 79
Forum of Trajan:
Nerva, fragmentof colossalportrait:29
Lateran:
bust of a man from the Tomb of the Haterii: 29
sarcophagus, "Plotinus": 58
statue of Sophocles: 766
Museo Nazionale delle Terme:
Julia Domna, head: 461
Lucius Verus, head, 58561: 40
Nero, head, 618: 284
Sabina, two portraits: 375
head of a charioteer, Trajanic: 873
sarcophagus, Annona, 2nd half of 3rd century,
40799: 81, 99
 INDEX OF MUSEUMS 111

TermeMagazines: Samos, Vathy

MaximinusThrax,fragmentof a portrait: 572 Augustus, head: P1. 43,g, 203,86-87
Vatican:
AlexanderSeverus,bust, Sala dei Busti, 361: 552 Smyrna
Augustus,statue fromPrimaPorta,BraccioNuovo, Museum:
14: Pl. 43,e, 86, 87 two statues of women from Magnesiaon the Mae-
Commodus,bust, Sala dei Busti, 287: 431 ander:78
Philip the Arabian, bust, Braccio Nuovo, 124:
573, 88 Sofia
head of an elderlyRoman, 1st centuryB.C., Museo Museum:
Chiaramonti,185: 84 GordianIII, bronzehead: 67
sarcophagus, Alcestis, Antonine, Museo Chiara-
monti, 179: 431 Thera
Vatican Magazines: Museum:
head of a man, Attic, 2nd half of 3rd century: bust of a young man, lst centuryB.C. (?): 125,18
101, 102
Tunis
Bardo Museum:
Saloniki
Livia, statue: 234
Augustus,fragmentsof heroicstatue: 86
Vaison
Samos, Tigani Museum:
Augustus,head: 203,86-87 Sabina, statue: 379
 GENERAL INDEX
ABASKANTOS,paidotribes:376
Aelius Verus,portraitsof: 4110
AlexanderSeverus,portraitsof: 54 and 552, 95
Anakreon,herm: 720
Antinous,portraitsof: 39
AntoniaMinor,portraitsof: 24
AntoninusPius, portraitsof: 13, 41
Aqueductin the Agora, 5th century: 66
Archons: 316, 341, 36 and 376
Augustanportraits:86-87
Augustus,portraitsof: 18-19, 86-87
BEARDS, see Hair and beard styles
Boethius, diptych of: P1. 48,c, 80
Book-box: 75 and 769,77, 78
Boots, panther-skin:72-73
Bronze statues, remainsof: 4
Busts, portrait: 5
CARACALLA, portraitsof: 50, 88, 93-94, 95,
Children,portraitsof: 54-56, 60-61
Chrysippos,Claudius,kosmetes:36 and 376
Classicismin Roman portraiture:83, 88; Augustan: Eyebrows,classicisticrendering:86-87
19, 86-87; Constantinian:69; 3rd century: 61-62, Eyes: crescentpupils: 9637; earliest use of engraved
983
Classicizingtypes in Greekportraits:88-89
Claudius,portraitsof: 28
Coiffures,seeHair styles
Coin-portraits:AntoniaMinor:221,23, 24; Aurelian:
99; Caracalla:503; ClaudiusGothicus:99; Faustina Finding-places
the Younger:45-46, 46-47; Herodotus:10; Livia:
221, 24; Lucilla: 48 and 491-2; Nero: 284; Probus:
99; Septimius Severus: 39 and 402-3; Valerian: 571
Coinsin footing-trenchof "ValerianWall": 915
Coloron portraits:65
Commodus, portraits of: 401, 42, 43
Constantine,Arch of, portraitsin medallions:69
Consulardiptych of Boethius: Pl. 48,c, 80
Consul'sinsignia,Late Roman: 79 and 812
Copyingof portraits:6
Corinth,"CaptivesFacade": 535
Corinth,refoundationin 45 B.C.: 13 and 1412,85
Corona civica: 73
Cuirass-statue,Hadrian:71-74
DECIUS, portraits of: 56 and 574
Demetrios, paidotribes: 316
Demosthenes, portraits of: 41
Dexippos, Publius Herennius,historian: 91-92, 104
Diocletian,inscriptionshonoring:918
Diocletian,portraitof: 918
Diogeneion:92
Dositheos,Aurelius,kosmetes:594
Drill, use for outlininglocks of hair, 3rd century: 93
Dromokles,father of Moiragenes,of Koile: 35
EARS, carvingof, 3rd century: 96-97
Ears thickenedfromboxingand wrestling:26, 37, 899
Eastern style in Roman portraits of the late 3rd
century: 63, 66-67
Economicconditionof Athensin the late 3rdcentury:
91-92
Eirenaios,kosmetes:594
Elagabalus,portraitsof: 51
Eleusis,childreninitiatedinto the Mysteries:7, 54-55,
612
Ephebe types: 26, 61, 88
Ephebiclist from the Agora,ca. A.D. 275: 91
Epidauros,priesthoodsheld by Athenians:10475
Eponymosof tribe: 371
detail: 36-37; eyes and eyebrowsengravedbefore
final smoothing:39, 47; pupils as simple cups: 50,
57-58, 9850; 3rd century carving: 50
FAUSTINA THE YOUNGER, portraitsof: 44-45,45-46, 47
of Agoraportraits:2-4
Flavian types in Greekportraiture:88
Forms of Agoraportraits:4-7
GAIUS CAESAR, portraitsof: 21, 87
Gallienian"renaissance":97
Gallienus,portraitsof: 62, 98
GordianIII, portraitof: 67
Gravereliefs, Attic: 6, 222,92
Greekelementsin Roman portraiture:83-84, 85-86
Gymnasiumin the Agora,Late Roman period: 6712,
74-75, 80
HADRIAN, base for bronzestatue in the Agora:7414
Hadrian, cuirass-statue:71-74
of:
Hadrian,portraits 375, 39, 71-74, 881
Hair and beardrenderedby smallcurvedincisions:50
Hair and beard styles: Alexander Severus: 54 and
552, 95; Athenian 3rd century: 94-95; Augustan:
16; Constantinian: 69; Gallienian: 97, 98; post-
 GENERAL INDEX
Gallienian:99-100, 101-102; late 3rd century:651,
68, 105; Neronian:284; philosophertypes: 88-89,
93
Hair styles, feminine: Antonine: 43, 44-45, 45-46,
46-47, 48; Flavian: 27; 4th century: 69-71; Julio-
Claudian:22, 23, 24, 25; Severanand 3rd century:
45; Trajanic:27, 32
Haterii, monumentof: 29
Head carved separatelyfrom torso: 4-5, 44
Head-vases,Late Roman: P1. 47,d, 66 and 674
Heliodoros,kosmetes: 30, 31
Hellenistic draped types in Roman female portrait
statues: 5
Hellenisticinfluencein Roman portraits:85-86, 87
Hephaisteion,torso of Athena from east pediment:
410
Herms,portrait: 5
HerodesAtticus: 7, 37, 476,78, 104
Herodotos,portraitsof: 9-10
Heruliansack of Athens,A.D. 267: 2, 6, 49, 64, 66, 91
Himation-statues:5, 74-78
Hippothontis, tribe: 35
"Horus locks": 558
IAMBLICHOS, supposedportraitof: 103
Idealismin Greekportraiture:82
Imperialportraitsin Greece:47, 89
Inscriptions:AgoraInv. I 231: 91; I. G., II2, 1041:
595;1809: 35; 2017: 316;2021: 30', 316;2193: 594;
2245: 92; 2887: 47; 3421-2: 918; 3666: 10475;3667:
515, 10475; 3668: 515, 10475; 3669: 929, 10475, 105;
3670-1: 10475;3679, 3688, 3693, 3708, 3710: 612;
3733: 316; 3814: 10473;4222-5: 8117;4226: 80 and
8117;5202: 918; I.G., IV2, 436-7: 10475;691: 10475
Italian elementsin Roman portraiture:82-83
JULIA DOMNA,portraitsof: 45 and461
Julius Caesar,portraitsof: 18
KASIANOS HIEROKERYX, archon:623,93
Kerykes:612, 64, 104
Koile, deme: 35
Kosmetai,portraitsof: 1, 2, 5, 7, 262,36, 49, 58 and
594-5, 90-91 (see also individualpieces in Index of
Museumsunder Athens, NationalMuseum)
LATE CLASSICAL ART, definition: 901
Late Severan portrait style in Athens: 94-95
Livia, portraitsof: 221, 23
Longinus, supposed portrait of: 64, 101
Lucilla, portraits of: 48
Lucius Verus, portraits of: 40, 42
Lysiades, Claudius, archon: 341, 36
MAGNESIAONTHEMAEANDER,female portrait statues
from: 5, 44, 78
Marbles used in Agora portraits: 4
113
MarcusAurelius,portraitsof: 408,42
Maximianus,inscriptionshonoring:918
MaximinusThrax,portraitsof: 56, 96
Measuring-points:6, 46, 48
Melitine,priestess,portraitof: 47
Metrodoros,Fulvius, archon:30
Moiragenes,son of Dromokles,of Koile: 735-37
NEGROES, portraitsof: 7
Neo-Platonists,supposedportraitsof: 63-64, 103
Nero, portraitsof: 284
Nerva, portraitsof: 28, 29
Nikagoras,sophistand hierokeryx,3rd centrury:641,
103-104
NorbanusSorex, portraitof: 13, 15 and 161
ODEION in the Agora, portrait statues: 720, 351,74-76
Onasos,kosmetes: 34, 36
laiE8sa&) ' o-rias TES: 54-55, 612
PUTi••V~V
Pantainos, T. Flavius, archon:316
Phileas, P. Aelius, archon:36 and 376
Philip the Arabian,portraitsof: 56, 88, 96
"Philosopher"portraits,Late Athenian:100-105
Philosophertypes: 88-89
Piecing of portraits: 11, 36, 38, 44, 72
Plastic vases, Late Roman: P1. 47,d, 66 and 674,102
Ploutarchos,4th century: 10475
Pointing: 6
Polishedsurfacein Trajanicand Hadrianicsculpture:
4, 30, 34
Polydeukion,favorite of Herodes Atticus: 37-38
Polykleitaninfluencein portraitsof 1st centuryB.C.:
11
Porphyry:4
Praefectus urbi: 80
Priests: 13-14, 28, 41, 53, 56-57, 63-64; high priest
of the imperialcult: 612, 63-64; of Isis: 13-14; of
Serapis:144
Pudicitia type: 17
Pupils, see eyes
RASPED FINISHfor fleshsurfaces:53, 58, 60, 61, 95, 96
in
Realism Roman portraiture:82-83, 88; Flavian-
Trajanic:29-30; Republican:84-85; 3rd century:
95-97
Regilla, wife of Herodes Atticus: 78
Republican portraits: 12-14, 15-16, 84-86
Rolled diadem: 14, 41, 46
SABINA, portraits of: 375'9
Sarcophagi: 4 and 513, 92, 93
Scalp-locks: 54-55, 61
Scrinium:75 and 769, 77, 78
Sculptors of Athenian portraits: 6-7
Sculptors of Roman portraits, nationality of: 83-84
Sculptors' workshops: 6, 48, 49, 9216
114 GENERAL INDEX

Septimius Severus,portraitsof: 39-40 Toga-statue,Late Roman: 5, 79-81

Size of Agoraportraits:5-6, 289,40 Torso carvedseparatelyfrom head: 4-5
Sorex, Norbanus,see NorbanusSorex Trajan,portraitsof: 31
Sosistratos,kosmetes:36 and 376 TrebonianusGallus,portraitof: P1. 46,c, 97
Stippledbeard: 105 Tryphon,kosmetes:594
Strophion:14, 41, 46
Strophionand wreath: 41, 612,63-64 UNFINISHED 6
PORTRAITS:
Subjectsof Agoraportraits:7-8
"VALERIANWALL": 2, 66, 90-91
TENONS on heads to be set into torsos: 5
Tetrarchicperiod,easternstyle in portraits:66-67 WORKSHOPGROUPS:6-7
Tetrarchicperiod,westernstyle in portraits:65 Wreaths:27-28, 34-35, 41, 53-54, 54-55, 55, 56, 60,
Thucydides,portraitsof: 107-8 63-64, 73
PLATES
 ? ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"""-?C-"
?
" ?? •', ''

.:bi

EP.

:;
~~~~"~
:?C.'?I".,..,I.*

r..
??' . . . .
.,.:':•; . ..
•.,•
... -.•:.•. . ..? .-
•:. ?. - ,
i .
?
?.• .....

: .
-'.•.- :•.','... .~?? ?~
-_... ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?? :
!• ...~C :
.•, ? ,•:.-• •:•
.o
.,. A:.
•:•i•-. .~... ..

N
...
.'
....

* I . .
. . .. ..

..

,,?r
, . .

o;??
.r

1.
PLATE 2

i. •,a

.:.•,

;L

.r .?

., ~a~
',.•~Ss~

2.

?: .
... ?
:: i.:? :,
?:: ..

.wi
.i
'~*
;Y?t i'r -i'"

,
.j

dW,.

?4-e

.........

5.
 WOW-~
ILI:
j:.-
.-*bL
.

?.1N
!r '
r?In

o. ,

...

3.
PLATE 4

:'VA.
•. , .
o..--
.* ?''; ?.' h .
...
? .....
?
?:?. ,.i r? .•. .
........... :'":,....
.,--
. . ........
....... .... .
il?Si! ... .. i:?.
.. ,-:,.••

.
..
' ? ' ?
t; ?: ;

'?... ? "? ;
?,• . :. .•

?II L:F
"." .;~~ ;:"?
',
.

? J?- .l?:~ .. ~
"' ;, '•'i~
;"
•' •'
:••
?~~ ?~~~~~?
?'
?.."
•i
~ ~~ ~~~ ;?i
"
"
"
• ..' " ,.
'•? •'" . . .,-•
: ..a... '"•:. .• : :,,
• . .,5 -t.

"
i. , • :.,: .:
.

4.

All
.. ...
.
......

? . ..,.i.N6
::?:
.
..
F,

. ?. 'i
:'
.. .

..~

?ii~?P
?_;~n ?

i ;??r~
o.

''
~dF~t~'s??
r.. ???

i*?'~5?~
?r
 PLATE 5

. : . .
?; ?:: . , . :i . .
. ..
''m
?.'. ..
o.
-;.. ? ?
..

.
.,

...i

1;

.. '''' ..

?
, .
o

?
...

:
..I.~.........
?
.r:.I'i.

.":. ~. ??-???????

...

? i- .. ? ?-
'
:: i !:;

7.
 .

i?

q!~

7.
 PLATE 7

:
' .?

"•X,

,•? ? ..
.-

8.

?
?
~~ ~ ~ '
~ ~
. .. .. . ? :
.;. .: .. ?.
• : :: .
?? " .
-. .:, . .•., . '
. .
' .
" ". .
?....i:•;: • ? ...
,

"k .. . "... ?
.
.? .-•,
..:wl

• i•
•,, !•,
.,. . .... ?'..,, ., ..;i.
•;•!i;•i• ••;:• i~i~li~ii~i
" !,•"
•;:!•-;•.• ~:•!ir• "..~
:::•" "~
?:. •.;:!.i

"
?~~~ ;..... ; "-
? i. V •••ii-i.::i.:,..
: •:.•!•i:,•.:i : -• ;'.
. a ?-? • ?_• •
- '" : " ?."i.
"= i.• .-7•.• - :, , .
i

? " • ";"•.• ;;
?'.. ;

. . ,.••" i;.!.•-

9.
PLATE 8

.
.. ,?.: .,o:

•~ ~.??
? ,•_.:
-
?,• .-.. .......:,.i:,•.
..._,
..~`

..' .??
n:
,I;..:.......

'?.i l":?
- -...i::.",-.,.h~ ?
. .
?
"
. ...,
•• " " i." " :
":?
".•.'
:" , ".:.""
"• .
.
:.
.?
..?;. :. . .
• • •..•' U:i:i:i•!..
..: i i! ! .. .

. .. ..
"":
.:•." :: .....
•i•:ii• •i :...''
:•-:•:::.•.

.
?: .? . . . . . _ .
..• ..:....
.. . .... • o,, .• -.

10.

..?

12.
 PLATE 9

......

.I .:

4i.2 ..

:--..?"
:?:'~I~i:% ??? ? x? ..
5
.":[::'''?'~J

..

..ap,;~~~~. ? .
.
,.....? ~ :;"::~:-,I.. ? ~~.

..

U?....
?? •
.,

,...

,•:.

11.
PLATE 10

iy~?
... ,"
.::
.
..•.•
?• i,•.•
•,• -.:. •:.' ::
!•
? .t.
i '? i
..
:i;,
??: ?
,..?.

: i?.. . s",.?;.~

r
,-
?,,.'

b.

.; ?. C~~i :I ?
.•,

i:'.; E ? .

..':
....

"
"

? ,."

11.

?'

!i
i

.
| ?:
, ..,.:

- ;I
., ., .r
"~~~L
'•
""'•

?; .
;..a

..

r o

13.
 PLATE 11

r-' ?-?E, j,
'' ~ i?
=- ?-fL
16; c~~*~ Y'
x
~?-,; ~?." ?.- t
. I?? ~. ?,
-
r

~':
.Z~ *"~;~~

?1. ?Ai

CP!

?-:
?I ri 4
i ?L?
.I; b
.u?i
:1 .
2~

ii

:rU:? -
arS~
,xlr r1?'i:
?L~C*

~t~s~b$F~i~ . ~q i(-
'?; a~? ~
C? ~i 'L
c?

:rl !t?l~y.
4
??? ,, *~Y?l~' i"~":~
I?iL'

14.

,.,
. ..
?ti*;i2"~r~
.--;o.,
..,,.
i1:r
.?i T
tQ 5

'iEa~
??? .•

i-
?
'r I,

?~

.e c
;1 .
; u~e~~~~c?
"., '''

.?

r
i
•'*'• r:i ~~ ?C~?r
'. ,

.t
r?

4? ,,7

1 1.: b~R
PLATE 12

:
...~: o?

~?
~ ?

.? ~~~ ....?i
.

•mT~i: '

"•~~~~e '
~~~~. ?" .. •:"
. "
••,:;•c: . . . "
?.
;?a ,.:••
..-i:•:o •..• •.....•+,..:: •

.
5
..,• ..:

; .:••::........ .. . ? "i:-...ii•
".•?,; ,.,i •=-......
?.• .,.....? ~~I
:-
. . , •! ,......
.:.,.... . - ::::•::i.
.,..•.
..l •!:-•: : ..::: ' ..
....?...'.
-
.

•.. : •: : ...
? :-.~?; .? . •i... ?
, . .? •
? ,. ? . ...: .' ,: .;
' :•?•':•"i :
" ? "
r:" " ! . .. .
."
•
. ?,.-? .. . .... . •,.; -

17.

........... -,?
.

ro
4. . ':

.
•

,j,

...... -e:
... ;.?:i:~
:::;•:i•
i?. *
:,:,•::'if
WI.
-
i, .....~
. .-.
?i -:
...
I'
...,jy

:? -?.T. 1'.~

?. .
.........?.
 ??I"
J~C~ .:7n;LC~L8~-r - -----~ac. si:;
';1

:~C~~2.

~r 1.
~?
??,.. ??L?i?I
c~ ? "Ilr' ~a~:,
"i""~~~~ ?-~
r ?.
~:????
.1?i4~E~; '~a~?
i,

I
I

r.
I
~l.b -4 11 I ~,~r:
*i

r-rr-r ~ rU~PV I ~1 '- s~i~

'~? F BE.>

I~i~k~ F~P I . 1
i:R? - rcl ? ~u?~Y~a~i~L~i~

:?.
F
::
i~??
j L.
LT?.
.
r?a..
t'-

-?&

'i~iiF~

18.
 .....

. .. ....
.. ....

?:
, ." ,::!
I:!•::

Wi
-; t.
'I....-,
NV... . ,3f.• .. . ...t :, , , " . ,. . .
...4,•,
?' -

??"
,,,.,•

?
....•,,,•..i
?. .

-nee. .0
.."...•.
r. ? dSP
-
...:

rL..•

,:'Ni~4. .::i
.$
'
";
..N. "
-
_ ,. .t
4,,•,i
. ,...

19.
 A X

Frle
it: 47,
rA.

t i~f'I 1-k

..;~?L?i~~;p;i
T-??r
::_1?-;:?::?-
???
PLATE 16

? '
i ... -
?.? . .• .
v_?A
,. .. ,:~.-
..? :, -
•;•:hir t, .
. ???"
. •........
-''.:. •~,' '.- ; "'
'* ...'...
?zj" :"=• ,i~•,•-
i.,• .. •i:•.<.•.:>• I...?. •.
",- '?,:.C ••
v • ].L "•.
':•
"•.. ,. '..; : , . ... i::

r- J

::[- .
"
.
,,,; ..~t .

::
, ; -?'•"
.a ••
i~
.,.•
•:.
•:• ... •
"•. ;•
c...?~

'
,

i•!• "i
y?- r

<.•~~~
~ i
.. ..:. o. :
.
# {i ?. •''"' '''. ?• .: :""
:.! ?.., ..,. .. , ,, .•- . .. "
.,:#
-,. .. •.. • -,
-..'"•:i:"•
=-
•"
'
.. u ?? •'"•~!••" ' •:'...
"
:i::'
5
?
,
! .
... ,.:,.-;..
....
:.. • :
I". :!.:?r..
•::j)i;.".:
.•....
.. ? ..:'":
.. .. :.

•
:}•,--.:,:.'o:.:'

21. 22.

.:?

..?
t?
..p

*
..
... ...
....,..

. .
•a...? .
.".... .: ....

t.-

'i` ':•'E i
t4:..

?,.,

' ..
..'
 ~
.........•.•,
>-.•-.
........ ~ ~
,•.,•I ~':
.<...
<.._,,..... '-;.•,

" l.5;. .7,•iI "

n,?.-
..............~
.:../.-:,"' ifj...

... :,. ..E

?:L''i~~
."ii ?i;
;:.?.;
I;

..
?r.rJ..-i-:7• .F
'Y

:? "Y-
h?--

"•.
•:?'P.: .i..
;,
? ?'
C•....:.. ... -,;...?:::
'•..
,!?I -,.'.i .": '
*?'.:.~~

•i.~!: • z
,"i."."'.
.;5
1
; : "• :" .1
,, ,';? . -.17
,• .. '•..~~~ ... ..:i"'r....,i

:~ .......'
i''....
"}.••"• ?3
:y?f '•,.?? .•• ;:••.,;i....
,,--:,,,m '•?"•'-'

''
ic?i ..,?,i
.:i "
..
?" " L.' '
'':"'i.:•

"" ? .~'a .? o.r '• "":""

.4:~'

. ...';' " ' "

'":";'•7;:=",
-,•.,_',,.....:..-:,.

25.
PLATE 18

'~' .'
. rCI

--:~ r * ~- I4' A

w"'
? .. .1
.
;-}: ,
. . ; , ., . ..
.Ao ::Y
-R? ?K .* .b
.. ??..,
:.e .....

.-:....;,?
o•,-
?

e _$I
H?
~
i..?? o c-
.

..?~,:
?? . ?
..?
AIc-~.
re.. , " i~

r,

26.

27.

. -?. N
_ -

41

I
•
.iki

. . .

29.
4e,

.
•
- ,,• . .-.-- .
-":... -
.

?.. ...
.....,.

28.
PLATE 20

,
. . .
."..' -lk,,t
.: . .
W-3 "...
,.
,• .
?, ..
.

...... . ,. ..
,, .." ?
:?I ::
•;•
A*C-
l~g? .1.!:
-....

k "

•
IF:~ '
•

40 -
,
...
? r
•,.~~1 . .

30.

1. ? ?? ??. ?? .
". .?;i:
.:
: :
.j; .. .
"*
? :.??7 .j?. . . . . . ..
:,:.ii••.
: :,, , ii

" •-7.lti r" :

? .. .... , . .

fi'
I ":

!::::.::..?

•
i .:. ...
, t/:..?
?
... .. .,.

..,..

,
,.

...

31.
 PLATE 21

~c~p'~ BLr',,

~7~u? ~
"?~ i
-.I
?r: .*
cg~l ~:Ir. ~'9%
s~ 1??? ~:?-:i~~,~:t
~r?? : :*i:
; P?!:~I ,? *?
?~~m~;Y~~'";?:L~erYi~IP_;d~e~F~-~
.,..
'

;Z~ro

????~i
?;`' ~?.?
R?:? ;?1 ra '1
a?ri F ; :i'
I L?
i ?*;
:(::- *
?r X'cr
:"r:y
I "';

i ...
:2.~:
::: ':?~?;
: i *+~ .P1.
*.+*''
:?:r:
?..?.
"Is '~
i
:
'' '`
'F
--?...,
:-?;? ?:QL?A-:~ 33.
?:.~u~h~ :T;
~? ?I??: ????;;
I??, I
.?:??: '1 .I~Z~;E~P~,~i~?~S~t;~;~rSi?~ti:
-q ~rr?~?:;
?~P~
le
k~; z :I:
1 ??: ';?
~t~,.a :L?1?Y?: ~1
?r~
Y?-
-?i~?:
C1 :C.?
1.
*?
~j~L~W~a~W'IL? ?'i
I
''i
irr ~~~H?7s'l~aY..?? ; ';ii.?r
.r;

:? ~?-'
''

PrB~-i-?
ii

33.

33.

""" •"...
.'
: ~ iih

:;i ?1I
':;•

*,.
F '•
 7"'"'
:'
?(..!,?,?:,:?,.lr-'R;?".:.
:?
r?_
r::;nbiY'L~ .`"`2~ . -i
t?i

,I ??, iF?vYrfS''`~:l.'?1..
. .'
:;? ,,
Zi; ?? i h
..d ;2? I',
r(;~Y ?\ -:il~i?????.'? 9
??.,z C r,
~:: r 1
:I ,
.?, s :~
.?~s~ r- -"'"'
P r
;t
:tu !1 -:?
i: r
Fi

~*??'?! ?; r 7"- ?;
;? ??-ci F ~Iul~
i ir
i
?r ?~i~?;r~
-?U n?,;
?;: i; ?~
i
i; ,ir CY t~'
~5
2:
r
'i
ii ),i '' =?,?:.:

J. .,?
?: t :r;f'?~j
.E3
:???'.~?~
I*!c~
-i"
?~?.
ijial~Jrs~-- -u Ir C;?

;Y r i?:
i 'r t
u~ *
.'r?r:? ;S, ?~lg:'
;:r 'I ,, .b
f
?;~ 'i ?':????
4.~?1~:~YCI ~;

~~:Cs .M!Fr a-lir..

I 9~uaa~z~ ~ ?
??:-
:~
:4~~ r!
~5;!! 5 Z
'L
?-
R'
?~Y.

!:~FrTbr~PLT ' ~IL I II

:+

3
 ",~ F:•
i?
-.~
'..,t "!
? ..• .:.

..... : ...
.....
., .. • •.
..:. .,...
...

;?: '! -
,'".i-• ;'!"i
'?-

....... "? " • •,

.?'r"
.U ?? ~,::,..
~c_?.p•~ ..?
,•2IS

v.
" ,i
i.?0 . . . . ..

? •.:'-, io
:.: .....-:.-,.,,, •
'
=.:.? . . . , •" ,
'f: ?~~~. " "
,;?i'.•;:
.. ..?:..?•
.t- ..C:, : .'"""

*
ck' ..- 4 :
" ':• '
i.+ . ,,,.;7k: ?,?, . .. '",
- •
... "'
•.~,,:

..
....I~i >.. .. ::?'. . ....: .... ...,

•
? ,• :I~.% lIlie?
, ....f:.
. .•. ,,-
? r
i • "
'c?~ .,,-a :?.. , r~c::
~?=W'Lw
'.'•.-"• ..
r.; ~
, i '''
. ?j..•,i•
.
?: "" :
. ;i
..?..; l:? '. '..- .. ... .
!• "'!•!
".•!>'.".:,!".:.:=•.~~~- id••!-':

36.
 ? . .
. ... .
'
?c~ .. . , . . .... .. •. .. .

1
P • ?.& .'• . • •?' ~~~~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~
~~.~. • :..--..
. "3." •.' .
.... ....~ .
.:.-. . .. ...'. .. ?k qs,
• ,.,': ,,,.:•.
..,,• ..:s•
~~~~~~~~~~
.
!•'.. ?" ...
:::...::. ." ,.:....,.: .o .- ... !,•.
: ":
"" •:•••'. '•?•
" "

....
"~~
";',g
•"..
?
, "
?'P
. " •"•
.;
.:i...: . "_:
,••? •:;.
, :• .
•: '

j.•:•:3.7•
?6F
... ...k

o?
:.?

~,
•i

?
,?, . ,
.]
..

.:

i:?
..
? :.i.;•i::
?~~~ .i.: -ii:-:•!::•...,. _ :•"? ".sl ,P.? ...
.i-i.. 3.)?;
'~~~~~~?a
, ? :..~:..
?. ..,- ...J . •:

.... .. ..-1:• ..,.i~f .•.•..••.•.:•...-•:_...• .w.t

:.•.!
'.IU
.:•.:.
- , ."..... ":
--.? ,. .. . :
.
: -::( .":". . .i... ..
.....
.....i ?.:i.i•i.••ii
.?~Fo.. ?.,..? ? "
.iii.. :•: ? .:: :•,-. .
::...:.7/. .ii. 3•
..... ..i -..-:. .i•..•-:i:. . ?
.,•,:o

' •:::::"'. . .. :
...:: -:•].i

37.
 " - .. : .... •
•• i :?: •'•' .
"•:I
TI:: :"5
"::: 2 ::7':• :?::.:
?.....
"I"', ..:
-"l'?r • .•?••.• eAIX i • •• -:
A:•. ?,•-,..:? .'i•..-:.:.-••o..• .?-.
..... -,,-.
t51 '.%
. .... •,. :. •
-"'' .,•:•.::•,,•,,•,

';'. '• .. .
14. 4??
.... :T" ,••
" .'• ...
r
?I "r " ?"?o
..:~I~'* -. ,
.".".. ..

T...

:"~~
?~.~O1i
.--?: k! ~ " . .: ~ ,.i:
':• .
.~ti ,?: .

i ,.•..•....•
I ....
T . :
. ;lTlr
?. ..i .• ,,:•..•c

." .....
?~~~" :.•:• . . "y •.
. .,
?
??.?:. .. . ?:. .. .::

~? ?~? '• ?'•

•:

..-•. ..:•?-
..,
?~1..•s
i :?
,
.,•-:.•-:: :•ii•.. ." I:,
:
..: ..

38.
 ..N
., ;.-V. '
?~.?
..;,. .. . .;):(•.• ,•L i. ..
?r~r - ;""" "' "'
. ...... "" ....
. . .,. .i .
..'-

?I
".".- ....• !-; ..."i ''•"i
;...•.•

,'~;?:
..:::I.
?:
:"i

: -??. ?:I

Af.,

i.,,

.'

. .

39.
 PLATE 27

40. 42.
41.

47.
 PLATE 29

45.

46.
PLATE 30

43.

44.
 PLATE 31

48.
PLATE 32

50.
51.
52.
5
56.
56.
57. 58.
57. 58.
PLATE 40

63.

59. 61.
 PLATE 41

..~.?.
•:•.••.• ...... • ";3
• 0
?;.

i~l??.
??;
c ???? %r
. .

.? . ~. :-
.

:- .:• C
; ? '..•',,•;;
. . ',1 ?
.

U6. I~
??????
?~'
sow-~j;,'s;~-~~,. ?
j
? .... W,, 4.
.T' ;li:
.. -. ::ill
:•ii •
US
U1"A _WM
-V -
?1w.' A
:i~i: U...

.
: :
•.•
.

... i

44S:•
r
. ??? •:ci:ii

?.
!•"::!''
.''; ,? .::.i: .. ..: : :•
::i *"
,9 ~?,
-:'h:;- :
,:i::•:: i:::i•,iii;':
. aL
i:!•'••' .....~- ii ....
........

...... ..-.. .... ... ..

:?
" nft
"Z-".'. " ''W
4.
i;3..
?::? :/
"~~~~t '?:: '~:~
?
..
?? ..' ?;.? ,i...."' ??;;
i':
.

?,;!!
;?•:•,• . . ::,?<j ,! ?
'??
;!ii C?l' •::":
It

:: i:i,: i, :;•
NA
twoi'
OSI'
C?-- fi'l
i::!•h.
,-
?: ?. ;i
"•
-.::
1
-?q •
, . .•
r
5?

t t, n;! V,. ": •• .?-

?m 1: . :.:.:::,:::,.
i, .

., .. . .?* . .

r
,,.~ ? . r•..• ... :.• ,•t .,•.-

•
PA.'%!l7"R-1 '" "

64.
64.
 a. Herodotos (Courtesyof Metro- b. Head in Athens, c. Head in
politan Museumof Art) National Museum

d. Augustus (?) from Nola (Courtesy e. Augustusfrom Prima Porta f. Augustus in Corinth
of MetropolitanMuseumof Art)
PLATE 44

a. Antonia(?) in Berlin
Hadrianfrom the Olympieion,in Athens, National Museum
 a. Ephebe in Athens, National Museum b. Ephebe

c. TrebonianusGallus (Courtesyof d. Priest in Athens, National Museum e.

MetropolitanMuseumof Art)
a. Head in Athens, National Museum
b. Head in Corinth

c. Head from Epidaurosin Athens, d. Head-Vasein Athenian Agora e. Head

National Museum
PLATE 48

a. Flaccilla (?) (Courtesyof MetropolitanMuseumof Art)

b. Regilla in Olympia c. Diptychof Boethius

 PLATE 49

'A BC D EFC- G M J KLM NO IPQPS T'UVWX Y

A ALXAEXC i
2
- ATHENS
3 w*b 01
40

w_. ...00O

\1'
0400
6 -i "
6 0 6
i 7
.7
8
99

12 / 1l2
I7I /41
-

16 .. --. IN
16
.. , 117 •,
18
.9N
27
7
........
2172
/
20
23.. p
""23

281

j
...2-...3

24
29 2

ActualStatePlanof the AthenianAgora